MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Hugo9000]

The marketing person at MQA has a degree in criminology lol

 

[Hugo9000]

@Archimago How about a Guy Fawkes mask?  ?

[Hugo9000]

32 minutes ago, FredericV said:

MQA time domain for dummies: the non-periodic sound test

I prefer the term aperiodic, personally.  Or is non-periodic one of those moving MQA terms, like blur, which only means what you think it means if you agree with them on MQA "solving" it?

[Hugo9000]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I know the company is struggling but hiring lunatics like this reflects poorly on the brand.

Sometimes a bad reflection is merely an accurate image, rather than a faulty mirror.

[Hugo9000]

19 minutes ago, Derek Hughes said:

Were you there? Chris did not state that he wanted to leave questions to the end. I worked at Intel for over 20 years, if you think that was rude you have no idea.

Are you still calling me a liar? 

Chris said "We'll come back to questions," and you immediately barreled in again, interrupting him.  Watch from 13:25 or so.  Isn't that you, rudely interrupting Chris?

[Hugo9000]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Which, legally speaking, is not the same thing as saying something is unlawful.

 

The first hurdle would be to prove the reverse-engineering (which itself might not be legal) accurately reveals the MQA contents. It is a high bar.

 

 

 

 

As far as I'm aware, this is still in effect:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

 

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself."

 

 

However, it's convenient here that MQA's principals and reps and shills all deny that it is DRM in any sense of the term, so the best defense if the DMCA were to be invoked against someone for reverse engineering would be to use those very denials of DRM against them.  lol

[Hugo9000]

Premium?  You can get it in that cheap-ass Meridian Explorer 2 for $200.  ?

[Hugo9000]

@Lee Scoggins The MQA-DRM product is a "free" feature for Tidal HiFi subscribers, I thought.  Thrown in there for no extra charge for those who want CD-quality streaming as a Tidal HiFi Member.

 

So that's not "premium," nor is that junky Meridian product that someone could use to get a special little light.

 

Oh, and if MQA is so special, I'm assuming that Meridian would agree that the junky $200 product must outperform their super-expensive products from the pre-MQA years.  That says a lot about their engineering prowess.

[Hugo9000]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, as you know sound quality has little to do with illuminating an MQA light. A track that’s already ruined will light up the MQA light. Thus, your comments about that light equating to good sound are completely incorrect. 

All that "research," is it really possible that he has no clue what you're talking about?  The results of tests done by members here have been discussed on a number of other sites.  ?  And wasn't it in your slideshow, as well?  Perhaps if he'd been paying attention, instead of heckling and brown-nosing his masters....

[Hugo9000]

20 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

...

 

2.  All the major labels and Merlin have committed to applying MQA to their entire back catalog.  I know from people working in the industry, that the MQA masterings are being done in volume.  There is so much activity that MQA now has a cloud-based service where engineers are uploading files that get encoded in the cloud.

 

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Like I said above, the goal is really to get back to what the artist and producer wanted in the studio.  If the recorded sound quality is poor, no codec is going to be able to solve it.  But with better quality productions, the MQA approach can improve sound from the ADC and other gear by applying filters.  Then it can compress the resulting (hopefully) hirez tracks for easier delivery on a streaming service.

How is some automated process going to get back to what the artist and producer wanted in the studio?  If the time and efforts of the artist and producer/engineer/et al weren't enough, some automated process is going to fix it?  That's really insulting to the artist and producer!  Obviously, there is nothing special about the process, and the "white glove" treatment that JA and a few others received for their files was an even bigger sham that it appeared back at that time.

[Hugo9000]

@MQA Spokespeople:

 

So how is this bulk processing handling all of the analog recordings?  You do realize, don't you, that the majority of back-catalogue music was recorded on analog tape?  The original (and sometimes even second, third, fourth, fifth, etc lmao) conversions to digital for release on CD were not HiRes.  Are the old and crummy digital conversions of those recordings simply being upsampled (like so much fake HiRes we read about) and batch-converted to MQA?

 

If there were any legitimacy to the procedure whatsoever, they would handle it like Sony did with their Living Stereo SACD series, going back to the session tapes themselves (you can ask Kal Rubinson about it, he wrote a nice article about his visit to SoundMirror, who handled that project for Sony, if I recall correctly).  It's very labor and research intensive to do it properly.  And even with digital recordings, the documentation is often lacking.  Sony did a better job than most, at least when they acquired the RCA catalogue, but the mess with Warner and Universal must be beyond belief...

 

Oh, and I'm talking here about classical recordings.  What about the horrors of pop/rock like all the tapes being recycled or discarded and documentation thrown away that we've read about over the years, even with legendary artists?  Even if MQA was real, and capable of fixing errors of the past, the reality of the music industry is such a mess it still would be a pipe dream for all but a few select and lucky artists of the past.

[Hugo9000]

@Brinkman Ship So which one has been deblurred by MQA, the smiling face of the guy in your signature, or the angry/constipated face he presented throughout the RMAF video of Chris' presentation?

[Hugo9000]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'm inclined to agree with the 24/96 comment based on the marginal SQ increase of SACDs over Redbook.

 

BTW, Stereopile has an article out now on how well MQA does over a 3G network (!!)  - maybe they have not heard of 5G?

They must be slumming, like when that guy wrote about using the Sony PS1 as an audiophile CD player.  Surely no one who can afford the equipment they tout would be using 3G still.  I think even TracFone uses 4G.  lol

[Hugo9000]

If they wanted discussions, and to interact, then they should have shown up for the RMAF MQA panel that was scheduled for last year, instead of backing out.  Then this year they interrupt and heckle someone else's presentation on the subject.  They should be laughingstocks as far as RMAF or any other conferences/shows are concerned.

[Hugo9000]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Why not? I have published letters very critical of MQA, and have expressed my own criticisms and reservations. However, the author would not be able to hide behind an anonymous handle or a pseudonym. And they would have to fully disclose their professional affiliations.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Unless that pseudonym is Sam Tellig.

 

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

This has been discussed before on CA. The agreement with Tom Gillett that he would write under the the name "Sam Tellig" was negotiated 2 years before I became Stereophile's editor in 1986. Though it made me uncomfortable, I honored that agreement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

51 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

It's not a tangent as far as Stereophile is concerned, Chris. It's a matter of policy. You're okay with people using pseudonyms, which is your right as owner of this site; with the exception mentioned above, I am not, and this is my right as the person responsible for everything published on Stereophile and on its website.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

47 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

Yet you said you the below that you did honor it so you clearly didn't feel that strong about it.  Right?

 

 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I was asked to honor the preexisting agreement that Tom Gillett would continue to contribute to Stereophile using a pseudonym. I gave my word to Stereophile founder, J. Gordon Holt, and Stereophile's then-publisher, Larry Archibald, that I would do so. When Tom Gillett resigned at the end of 2014, that was the end of my commitment.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Quite a high horse to be on under the circumstances, I'd say.  From 1986 until 2014?  I suppose it's convenient he resigned, or you might still be sacrificing your high principles.

[Hugo9000]

8 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..at least Chris's wife did not sell ads for 20 years...which your wife did for Strereophile as you were editor...

Even if true (I didn't know if he was married or not, nor did I ever care as a subscriber or otherwise lol), there is often a firmer "Chinese wall" between married people than between coworkers, so that may not be bad in itself, except for an appearance of impropriety!

[Hugo9000]

13 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..at least Chris's wife did not sell ads for 20 years...which your wife did for Strereophile as you were editor...

 

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm not sure I see a problem with this assuming it is true.

The idea would be that there should be a "Chinese wall" between the editorial and advertising sides of a magazine to prevent any conflicts of interest or appearance of impropriety.  (To prevent accusations or suspicions of "bought" reviews:  "Here is your glowing review in exchange for your lovely new ad!")

[Hugo9000]

14 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Even if true (I didn't know if he was married or not, nor did I ever care as a subscriber or otherwise lol), there is often a firmer "Chinese wall" between married people than between coworkers, so that may not be bad in itself, except for an appearance of impropriety!

 

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm not sure I see a problem with this assuming it is true.

 

10 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

 

The idea would be that there should be a "Chinese wall" between the editorial and advertising sides of a magazine to prevent any conflicts of interest or appearance of impropriety.  (To prevent accusations or suspicions of "bought" reviews:  "Here is your glowing review in exchange for your lovely new ad!")

 

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

My wife was Audio magazine's top salesperson when we first met and strongly believed in the idea of the Chinese Wall. We never discussed specific advertising or editorial matters all the time until she retired in anything other than the past tense. For example, "Your Velodyne review just lost the magazine $50,000 worth of advertising"  -

see https://www.stereophile.com/content/velodyne-df-661-loudspeaker

- to which I responded "Cheap at twice the price!"

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, as you can see in my first post on the matter, where I just highlighted the significant portion above!  Of course, it was a joke about married couples who don't communicate, but the jokes that get the best laughs are rooted in truth, aren't they?  If not, nevermind, as I'm more into drama and romance than comedy, so I very well may be wrong on what's funny.

[Hugo9000]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

"Oh dear, I'd best be more careful with future reviews."

See, I think that comment is hilarious, but then as I said, I'm not sure that I'm a good judge of humor!

[Hugo9000]

22 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

A Chinese Wall seems unreasonable.  JA would have to refrain from picking up Stereophile for fear of discovering the advertisers and he'd have to refrain from talking to folks in the industry for fear they may be advertisers, and he'd have to refrain from talking to subscribers and "audiophiles", etc. This is absurd.

JA himself has discussed it, which is why I mentioned it.  I've never heard of anyone meaning it as literally as you're taking it.  Basically, the idea is that he won't discuss advertising with manufacturers, as that isn't his department.  Manufacturers or other advertisers such as equipment dealers, likewise, are expected not to talk about advertising with the magazine or not in relation to product availability for reviews, loans, pricing accommodations, or anything along those lines.  Anyway, he can chime in if he wants.  I think it's a common enough concept with magazines or television programs that have to balance editorial content with selling advertising.  It's not a legal concept, rather an editorial policy that is adopted (or not) by choice.  Obviously, there are those out there that are shameless with quid pro quo, and it normally comes out eventually to readers or viewers.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

On the internet, there are things like third-party ad brokers as Mansr mentioned, which can avoid the issues of possible bias.  Or, one could seek companies like Rolex or other upscale products to see if they are interested in advertising in a HiFi magazine or on its website.  How many audiophiles play golf, or are interested in photography, or other hobbies that have expensive gear?  A bit of research, and the right ad sales reps, and it might be feasible to carry zero ads directly related to audio, since the old model of subscriptions paying the full cost of running a magazine doesn't seem to work any longer.

 

Although, even then, there is always a possibility that a manufacturer will simply pay in some way other than advertising in order to get a positive review.  And, of course, the possibility that some readers will suspect such shenanigans whether or not it actually occurs.  So it all comes down to whether readers trust the editors and writers, no matter what the magazine's (or website's) stance may be on advertising.

[Hugo9000]

34 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Correct.  It is very easy to implement.   IT is a policy, but one that is taught in the ethics classes at all Schools of Journalism.  And, AFAIK, all journalism majors are required to take an ethics class.

 

But Stereopile and the other industry organs that masquerade as consumer magazines are not journalism

I suppose I'd call them "professional fanzines" or something like that, or "hobbyist magazines."  Do any of these specialty magazines even claim to be consumer-oriented or consumer advocates or similar, other than Consumer Reports or Cook's Illustrated?  Informative writing is nice, as is entertaining writing, and I don't think anyone should feel denigrated for being referred to as an entertainment writer rather than a journalist.  That's not how I personally mean it, anyway.

 

However one looks at it, I would expect honesty and integrity or I wouldn't bother reading or subscribing, whether it was a fanzine dedicated to Angelina Jolie with a readership of 113 people living in their mothers' basements, or some glossy and gorgeous magazine with millions of subscribers.  I wouldn't call most writers at newspapers these days journalists, I suppose, so I don't really worry about whether or not a writer at a hobbyist magazine is a Journalist-with-a-capital-J, but that's just me.

 

Edited to add:  I'm not implying anything about fans of Angelina Jolie, or anything against anyone who lives in a basement, so I hope no one will take it that way!  I like some of her films a lot myself, and my own mother has a lovely and spotlessly clean basement that would be preferable to some apartments I've rented in the past, although it smells just a touch musty, which is pretty much unavoidable where she lives, due to the water table, etc.

[Hugo9000]

I just want to say how much I'm enjoying listening to my boxed set of Dvořák symphonies, with Neeme Järvi and the Royal Scottish National Orchestra.  Just good old RBCD from Chandos Records, but at least it's blissfully free of BS's artifacts and added noise!

 

Some of the smaller classical labels like Chandos and BIS (my personal favorite) have long had better sound quality than the "majors," but I guess that gap will widen further as the "majors" butcher their work with all that batch-processed master-quality adulteration, performed in the "cloud" (of added distortion).  

[Hugo9000]

@The Computer AudiophileWasn't there also something in the email comparing you to Mr. Darcy, and BS to the perfidious Wickham?  

 

(So sue me, I love Jane Austen lmao)

[Hugo9000]

For an idea of the complexities of reality in classical, here are a couple of interesting videos from Deutsche Grammophon (for those who don't listen to classical, it's one of the largest recording companies, with countless acclaimed recordings from Herbert von Karajan among many others, including Leonard Bernstein as seen here).  Some of what they do here is invasive and questionable, but this gives an idea of the realities of older recordings and how it is impossible for a batch process to magically fix anything.

 

 

 

 

[Hugo9000]

Here is a brief video from Sony, also relating to their work with the recordings of Leonard Bernstein for the labels under their umbrella (Columbia, mostly, and its variants):

 

 

Compared to the DG recordings, these were "minimalist" lol.  However, note that they take the step of "re-tuning" the "out of tune" organ that was in the original recording and all previous releases.  Will they also fix botched notes and other things?  There overall process may not be as invasive as DG's, but they still are making serious changes to what actually occurred in the studio/concert hall, but also serious changes to what the original producers and engineers did, as well as what Leonard Bernstein approved back in the day.  Would he welcome any of this?  Even if he would (he's deceased, for those who may never have heard of him), these recordings will no longer reflect history at all.  Is it okay to "fix" a "mistake" made by Alfred Hitchcock, for example (scissors angle in Dial M for Murder, for one)?  What about paintings and sculptures or any other form of art?

 

Anyway, OT to MQA, but relevant with regard to the complexity involved and the idea of intent or wishes of the original artist(s), producers, etc.