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

[Brinkman Ship]

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2018-axpona-show-report-digital-and-personal-electronics/?utm_source=The+Absolute+Sound+List&utm_campaign=4b535a6c2d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_844faeddad-4b535a6c2d-109080993&mc_cid=4b535a6c2d&mc_eid=7e57b16115

 

"Since MQA was announced I’ve attended more than a half-dozen public demos in addition to the many hours I’ve spent listening at home on my own systems. At AXPONA I had a chance to partake of another demo, courtesy of Peter McGrath in the Paragon Audio room, with the Wilson Audio Alexandria XLF loudspeakers. Actually, I attended the demo twice. The first time I sat in the prime listening seat while during the second session I sat in the seat directly next to the prime listening seat. McGrath’s demo, using his own stunningly good recordings, codified for me two vital details about MQA demos and MQA listening in general: My first truth, which I have found universal, is that if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space. MQA can’t make a badly mixed studio recording sound good. My own live concert recordings with the purist sonic characteristics have sounded better when encoded into MQA. Peter McGrath’s magnificent recordings were also improved by allowing an easier listen into the mix and more readily identifiable soundstaging. Peter called it “more human.” To hear MQA’s subtle but powerful differences you must listen to a good recording of Mahler or Mozart, not Metallica.

The second and equally important detail about MQA A/B listening comparison tests is if you are not in the prime listening position, which is the one that triangulates most precisely with the transducers used during the listening session, you are not in a position to judge MQA sound quality properly. When I was even one seat to the side of the central listening position the effects of MQA were vastly reduced to the point where they were almost nonexistent. I have been in sessions where even professional recording engineers (and audio reviewers) have made dubious (and IMHO downright wrong) assessments of MQA’s sonic effects based on a group session where almost everyone in the room is in a bad seat (which is any seat that is not properly triangulated with the transducers). In all the other seats you might as well be listening through a Dixie cup and a string—really.

So, if you have an opportunity to participate in a group listening session evaluating MQA, unless you have THE SEAT, i.e. the sweet spot, your opinions are not going to be correct and you won’t be hearing any of what I have come to believe are fundamentally profound (but subtle) sonic improvements that MQA-encoded files can have over the original WAV (or even DSD) masters. Let the flames begin…"

So it has to be a "phase correct' REAL instrument or instruments in a REAL acoustic space and you have to sit in THE SEAT...

Yup, that's it. Everyone has gotten it all wrong these last 4 years, because they all been sitting in the wrong seat...

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, james45974 said:

Seems like there was barely a whimper of MQA from Axpona, at least the coverage of the show that I have read.

Oh, Master Shill Jason Victor Serenus managed to mention MQA through out his reports gratuitously.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, Ajax said:

Mark Waldrep from AIX Media Group does not hold back on what he thinks of the article and MQA in general.

 

"Do You Hear What I Hear? AXPONA Part II

I was heartened to learn from several other vendors that MQA is not a regular topic of conversation and audiophiles aren't asking whether this or that DAC will include this completely unnecessary technology. But I do continue to read discussions and comments posted by advocates for MQA. Steven Stone's recent 2018 Show Report contains a rather curious section that narrows down the conditions under which MQA encoded music sounds best (if it's supposed to sound different from the master at all!). His first universal truth is "if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space". Apparently, he liked the MQA process on a variety of Peter McGrath's recordings as played in the Paragon Room through Wilson speakers at the AXPONA show — but only if you sit in the "prime listening position". If his assessment is correct (which is highly doubtful), virtually all of the MQA albums being streamed on Tidal won't benefit from the MQA process because they were produced in the confines of a recording studio. Additionally, listeners have to sit in a single location in order to maximize the sonic benefits accorded to MQA processed material. Wow.

As the purveyor of recordings made using high-resolution PCM (at 96 kHz/24-bits) in acoustically rich venues that are indeed phase coherent, my catalog would be a prime candidate for MQAing, right? As I've stated before, the inventor of the technology and others in MQA employ have offered to process some of my tracks and let me experience the "magic" that MQA can impart on my otherwise high fidelity tracks. I uploaded 12 tracks to a mutually agreed on FTP site almost 4 years ago and despite repeated requests haven't heard back from the company about when I can download the MQA tracks. I suspect that the MQA versions will sound different than my high-resolution originals — and I would consider that a degradation of their fidelity — and a violation of the tenants of the process as explained to me by the inventor. All this talk about MQA's "sonic improvements" or its ability to deliver "more readily identifiable soundstaging" or whatever people say they like about it, contradicts the intended design goals of the technique. Robert Stuart told me that the process shouldn't enhance the sound of an original master. It's primary job is to maintain more of the original fidelity through each stage of production — and reproduction. The idea is to lose less fidelity along the way. So those that hear and value the euphonious effects of MQA are actually arguing against it. No change from master recording to reproduced output would be ideal — and imperceptible.

As far as I can glean from all of the articles, technical papers, patent applications, and conversations I've had, the advantages of an MQA-encoded file apply only to real high-resolution music recordings when streamed through a bandwidth limited network (wired or wireless). It was not designed to be a sonic enhancement process but rather a bandwidth saving technology — and it does manage that trick although there are other "open source" methods that accomplish the same thing. The record companies that have submitted to the hoax that is MQA don't have catalogs of high-resolution audio with ultrasonic frequencies in need of origami folding. This is my biggest complaint about the MQA myth. If the trick of folding ultrasonic content under the in band content is key to its "better sound" then there better be meaningful amounts of ultrasonic content in the original tracks. The fact is there isn't any and even if there were, your system and ears couldn't process it. The CEA/CTA and its associated member companies continues to promote "hi-res" music as the next big thing in music — they don't realize that taking old content and wrapping it in a large bit bucket doesn't do anything — but it is good for commerce.

One recent FB comment dismissed my dislike of MQA by saying that I just don't have adequate equipment or that my hearing is incapable of experiencing the fidelity improvements of MQA. Once again, it's a personal failing that I can't hear the difference. This regular subjectivist retort is tired and completely false. 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?"

 

Wow.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, crenca said:

 

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

...and keeping Bob Stuart's 40 year charade going...

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour 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—a subject I addressed in an editorial that appears in the current (May/June) issue of The Absolute Sound ("Audiophiles Online: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly".) I'm a faithful follower of Computer Audiophile, so I feel I have the right to participate; I'm claiming no special status as an audio writer.

 

 

 

The term "shill" has been accurately defined (Wikipedia) as "a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization." As so defined, my colleague Steve Stone (or, for that matter, Robert Harley, John Atkinson, or Jason Serinus) is not a "shill", though a few of the less thoughtful participants on CA forums focused on MQA love applying the term to pretty much any industry person with a positive view of the technology. It's a classic ad hominum attack, questioning the motives and integrity of that person.

 

 

 

It's noteworthy that the ire directed at MQA at CA has so easily morphed into a contemptuous dismissal of the established magazines. When it comes to assessing audio equipment, these publications, as well as strictly electronic outlets, and even some blogs that are basically one-man shows, all operate on a very well-established protocol. A manufacturer sends a product, a reviewer attempts to understand its design goals and listens to it for a length of time that varies but is always longer and more comprehensive than a non-reviewer customer could expect, and then writes about his conclusions, incorporating a variable mix of objective measurement and subjective impressions that employ a descriptive language developed decades ago in the pioneering "high-end" magazines.

 

 

 

In case you haven't noticed, that's what goes on at Computer Audiophile. A professional journalist assesses a product in an informed and disciplined fashion and produces a cogently written piece that intelligent people will want to read. At CA, that obviously means Chris Connaker, though there may be others that CC compensates for producing content for the site. It's not hard to imagine Chris functioning very successfully as a reviewer for TAS or Stereophile—he is technically savvy and writes fluently and entertainingly. Manufacturers seek out CA, as they do Stereophile and TAS because the publication gets them in front of the customer base they need to be in front of, which is a function of the quality of the content.

 

 

 

What strikes me as an illogical and contradictory aspect of the bashing of the established publications in several CA forums is the suggestion that the content in the magazines is merely a platform for advertisers—the possibility that hobbyists actually read the magazines for entertainment and informed opinion is dismissed. The irony, of course, is that tens of thousands of people actually pay to subscribe to TAS and Stereophile. To be sure, advertising dollars are necessary to attract decent writers and to make these enterprises at all profitable, but there is a significant base of income that comes from paid subscriptions.

 

 

 

Nobody pays to read Computer Audiophile. All the funds needed to sustain Chris C come from advertisers. And that's where you, the enthusiastic, sometimes unbridled, and largely anonymous posters come in. Many enthusiasts come to the site to participate in or just observe the catfights, takedowns, and general mean-girl posturing that informs many of the forum discussions. Did "MQA is Vaporware" need to run 329 pages? Of course not—it became a repetitive, self-congratulatory echo chamber early on—but the number of views were manna for Chris. It's not a surprise to me that CA forums are so lightly edited, compared to the way that noxious reader comments are dealt with on the TAS and Stereophile sites.

 

 

 

So, is Chris Connaker a "shill?" By virtue of the fact that he commissioned Archimago's thorough review of the MQA story, one could conclude that, like many in the industry, he's very skeptical of the benefit of the technology for consumers. On the other hand, he doesn't feel the need to ring in on the merits (or lack thereof) of MQA whenever the subject arises. Take Chris's piece last November on the Berkeley Alpha DAC MQA update. At the outset of the piece, Chris felt it was important to state up front that

 

 

 

"…this article is neither a referendum on MQA, nor an endorsement or rejection of MQA."

 

 

 

A disingenuous straddling of the fence? A look over his shoulder at the advertisers that have decided to include MQA in the design of their products? Later, Chris admitted

 

 

 

"Of course I listened to some MQA material through the DAC but I purposely avoided using that in the review. The topic is too loaded and would distract from the real story that is the firmware update."

 

 

 

Fair enough. But by passing on an opportunity to give an opinion regarding the effect of a modification to a top-of-the-heap digital product on SQ, was CC responding to the sensibilities of some of the manufacturers that pay the pills at Computer Audiophile—basically what the "MQA is Vaporware" crowd is so vociferously accusing TAS and Stereophile of?

 

 

 

No, Chris Connaker is not a shill. But there's a real tension in play with Computer Audiophile. So much of the content is well informed, helpful to readers, and reflects a sense of a generous and inclusive hobbyist community. At the same time, a small number of intemperate and self-important forum participants are generating a lot of the views that Chris Connaker needs to show advertisers.  He does need to keep those advertisers convinced that CA is a productive place to engage potential customers. The risk is that his wonderful site is commandeered by a tiny cadre of single-issue individuals who are very much in love with the sound of their own voices.

 

 

 

Andrew Quint

 

Senior Writer

 

The Absolute Sound

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All good and well, and you make some nice points.

 

However this does not address Stone's absurd and ridiculous notions about why no one is "getting" MQA..

 

To try to read that section of his report with a straight face requires considerable effort.

 

These types of comments in reviews and show reports chip away at the credibility of audiophile publications.

 

When your editor claims MQA is a Scientific Revolution, it takes some series stones (no pun intended) to defend that.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

2 hours ago, beetlemania said:

 

Yep! Other than Soundstage (specifically, Doug Schneider) and now CA via Archimago's article, the audio media has completely failed the consumer on MQA. Stereophile and, especially, TAS have earned our scorn and derision.

to be fair, let's count Jon Inverson of Stereophile, and Kal Rubinson, who actually backtracked on his initial MQA endorsement.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, 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 the trickery did make it sound better, the same sort of trickery could be applied to any other format, obviating the need for a closed format like MQA.

 

Um...Bingo.

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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 are in fact what they are listening to is a master (which is sometimes differently sourced than the "equivalent" 16/44 or Hi Res) and 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...

 

Add to that human nature...people want things that are too good to be true to be genuine...

 

a codec that can-

 

-"improve" the sound of digital masters dramatically

-"reduce" bandwidth

-improve time domain

-can be streamed with no limits for $20 a month

 

Like fairy tales, one can suspend disbelief.  Then the cold water gets splashed.

 

[Brinkman Ship]

7 hours ago, emcdade said:

These threads are so repulsive that I feel like I signed up at r/thedonald.

 

Not a good look for this community, at all.

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.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, emcdade said:

 

"Fake journalism", "shilling".....sounds familiar.  What is good for a laugh is how worked up you get over an audio format.

....why are you here? 

[Brinkman Ship]

8 minutes ago, emcdade said:

To point out the ridiculousness of your nature.

 

Enjoy the music.

..should i ask again? If you don’t have an opinion on the topic at hand then stop about posters and posts.

 

you have been strongly rebuked by numerous posters on this thread...so you are a minority of one..see ya.

[Brinkman Ship]

15 minutes ago, emcdade said:

To point out the ridiculousness of your nature.

 

Enjoy the music.

10 posts...hmm...Which alter ego of which MQA shill are you? perhaps Steven Stone himself?

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

our new shill hates Class D and loves Lasagna

 

- Let's start a betting pool on how the account lasts...

LOL...you figure these shills would put more than a half hearted effort into their new accounts...this guy is mailing it in...

[Brinkman Ship]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I wasn't planning on returning to these fetid waters anytime soon, but emcdade's appearance on the forum (which I'm sure will be brief) was a breath of fresh air and I wanted to affirm, for him, that his read of the situation was spot- on.  Yes, the choleric response you got—"What are you doing here?"— tells you all you need to know. This thread (and several others) is not typical for Computer Audiophile, a megaphone for an unwelcoming and xenophobic subculture that has found a place to install itself. It began as a useful nidus for the critical consideration of a technology, but an increasingly assaultive tone has metastasized to attack those, like you, who are astounded by the sheer nastiness of many of the postings. Whether the topic is MQA itself or the devolution of the "discussion" into 14-year-old-boy-style  insults directed at manufacturers, audio writers, or other consumers—just look over the last week of postings for invective referencing excrement—the goal is to run you out of town. So, emcdade, don't feel you have to endure this for terribly long; your point has registered.

 

If you examine the postings of some of the most aggressive participants, you'll note that they haven't been members of CA for all that long and that the MQA-bashing threads are pretty much all they are interested in. In my view, Chris Connaker has a problem on his hands—again, the tenor of this thread isn't usual for the site as a whole—and if MQA, the business, has some significantly positive commercial news to reveal shortly, as Chris implies, it's only going to get worse.

 

You really have quite a nerve.

Xenophobic subculture? Where are you even coming up with this rubbish?

Really funny how you found a kindred spirit in emcdade. Really funny.  Well coordinated.
 

The fact is he has offered no opinion on MQA, and like other pseudo moderators
persisted on commenting  posters and posts. He was asked  why he was on the thread after

no posts concerning MQA were offered.

You sir will have a lot to answer for when your publication has it’s comeuppance..
 

Promoting a product that is a fabrication, that is destructive to the original source,
and has been exposed as a massive marketing lie has exposed the audio press once and for all.

 

CC has no problem, is it you and your ilk that have the problem.

And you don’t like it..your self righteous blather won’t help you.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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...

Nicely worded. File his post under SELF RIGHTEOUS BLATHER...

 

Give him credit for a nice little plot with the "newbiie" poster...

[Brinkman Ship]

44 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

The "blather" part is an opinion you're entitled to.

But I assure you that I have no idea who emcdade is. That's pretty paranoid.

Let me offer up another observation..re-reading your diatribe, it qualifies as a fantastical screed.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

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.

Exactly the situation here....local playback is my main source.

[Brinkman Ship]

I am certain everyone here knows that the Roon team once worked for Meridian after they acquired Sooloos.

 

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.

 

I have no idea about their finances, but Roon has been a massive success as far as wide spread adoption by users and manufacturers, and has bent over backwards to fix problems and produce new features. I give the Roon team full credit staying the course and taking risks. As far as their MQA solution, I could not possibly care less, and if Tidal folds, it will be a moot point.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

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...

the huge difference being his is not an end user solution, and actually degrades sound quality, unlike Roon.

[Brinkman Ship]

 

kinda sums it up...

"If Bob Stuart truly has discovered a new perceptual phenomenon, then he needs to demonstrate it scientifically. Otherwise MQA is just a marketing ploy to resell previously recorded material in a proprietary file format and they are Phishing for Phools."

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/links.htm

[Brinkman Ship]

5 hours ago, shtf said:

 

Remember that Bob Stuart promoted MQA as all things to all people.  I suspect the storage argument is for the poor folk.  Perhap places like the Sudan or Bangledesh or Kenya, South Central LA, etc. 

 

That's our Bob.  Always thinking of everything and everybody ahead of himself.  A selfless genius in my book.

 

 

 

 

A true Hoomanotariyan.

 

I actually don't know why we were surprised about this..Meridian sold over priced junk for decades...but folks (of course, aside from the mags) caught on to this and dealers could not give their giant paperweights away. Hence the financial abyss and the leaching off the in laws..