"Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested".....

[GUTB]

On 6/17/2018 at 7:40 PM, shtf said:

 

Though I've no doubt Atkinson, Harley, Quint, Austin, et al are in dire need of boosting their listening skills, I think that is entirely irrelevant to the MQA fiasco.

 

On the other hand, a Morals and Ethics for Dummies course might not be.

 

You’re responding to someone who literally made up a story about comparing 50 MQA downloaded albums to thier originals at a rich audiophile friend’s house one day. The irony is stunning — not that you likely care.

[GUTB]

 

1 hour ago, shtf said:

 

I’m new around these parts so I’ve no way of knowing if what you say is true, but let’s assume you’re right.   So I guess the question is:

 

Would I prefer engaging one who wrote about an imaginary listening session who has little or no influence over high-end audio and whose imaginary findings of MQA performance were rather accurate?

 

Or would I prefer engaging an editor-in-chief, having some influence over high-end audio, who experienced several non-imaginary MQA demo’s yet his non-imaginary findings of MQA performance were entirely imaginary?

 

Given those two choices, I suppose I’d prefer neither.  But if I had to make choice which person stands to have greater character, which is likely to be more accurate and more worthwhile engaging, hands down I would choose Brinkman.  But I would definitely want to hear more about this imaginary system Brinkman used for his MQA comparison as I’ve no doubt it must be quite a revealing and musical playback system to be this accurate.

 

 

 

I appreciate the emotional touch.

 

 

See? You didn’t care.

[GUTB]

2 hours ago, shtf said:

 

Does this mean we're thru?   I think I need a moment to myself.

 

You were alerted that the poster you’re supporting over some of the most well-known ears in audiophilia was caught making up a fake story about comparing MQA files, and you maintained course. I thought it was unlikely you’d care enough to adjust your position...and as it turns out you don’t.

 

Also your attempt to cover the hypocrisy with humor failed because the line doesn’t connect with anything in the discussion. A witty one-liner is one way to salvage some face out of a defeat, but if you can’t deliver a good line it’s better to just say nothing at all.

 

What you should have done was avoided the hypocrisy altogether which you could have done while maintaining your anti-MQA position. Ie, "I don’t know why someone has to lie about MQA sounding bad, it’s obvious to many listeners". You were caught up in the need to fit in socially and lost sight of your tactical position.

[GUTB]

32 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

He was not "caught making up a fake story."

 

He was. When asked to list these supposed MQA albums he was unable to because there weren’t that many MQA downloads available. What’s frustrating to me is that the whole story was ridiculous on its face and so few people here couldn’t instantly recognize it as a fruad.

[GUTB]

14 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

He was not. The fact that you and others asked him for a full list, and that he eventually provided a much smaller one (2 or 3, I believe) does not mean he was caught.

 

This is why you - and ironically, also Brinkman, along with some others here - are such a toxic presence here: You make definitive assertions without factual support and simply refuse to qualify, correct, or otherwise be accountable for your statements.

 

He was. After multiple attempts to get him to list these MQA download albums, he came up with 2 or 3. In other words, he made it up.

[GUTB]

Does anyone know of a MQA-capable DAC that can decode MQA CD (ie, from SPDIF/Toslink)? I think the Meridian units can do this, but anything else?