MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[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.

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

if Chris wrote an article about MQA for your publication you'd consider publishing it?

 

Of course not. Chris has his own outlet for his opinions right here. His contributing to Stereophile is as in appropriate as my writing for The Absolute Sound or SoundStage. If you want to read my opinions on MQA, you have to read Stereophile, as distasteful as some here find that.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Of course not. Chris has his own outlet for his opinions right here. His contributing to Stereophile is as in appropriate as my writing for The Absolute Sound or SoundStage. If you want to read my opinions on MQA, you have to read Stereophile, as distasteful as some here find that.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

More to the point, would Stereophile be willing to publish an article critical of MQA, that relied on objective facts and data, rather than opinions and innuendo?

 

 

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Does she even know what happened?  I assume she couldn't be present at all venues simultaneously.

Also, even though I agree the hecklers were rude and shot themselves in the foot (an ideal outcome, if you think about it), did it really cross a line where an apology from anyone is required?  It isn't so clear from one youtube video where the sound quality is quite poor.

 

 

No one (certainly not me) is blaming her for not being omnipotent.  She should be made aware of what happened (if she is not already), and then she should take responsibility to the very extant (nor more, no less) that her role affords.

 

Otherwise, consumers have to ask such questions as:  Are the sacred cows of this hobby/industry (such as MQA) given special place at RMAF?  Do the normal expectations of presenters, participants, and RMAF show goers become "optional" when MQA (or any other industry darling) executives are in the room?

 

I agree with @John_Atkinsonthat Chris could have done more, but we also know that trumping his own ability to "control a room" unrealistically.  It would take just a handful of us to show up at his presentation and disrupt it quite easily and there would be nothing he could do about it.  Does not matter if this was to our benefit or his, it could be done.  Is RMAF a venue where this is acceptable?

[John_Atkinson]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

More to the point, would Stereophile be willing to publish an article critical of MQA, that relied on objective facts and data, rather than opinions and innuendo?

 

 

 

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

 

[wgscott]

2 minutes 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

 

 

I am glad to hear that.

 

(The answer about Chris had me worried that this might not be the case.)

[wgscott]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

Otherwise, consumers have to ask such questions as:  Are the sacred cows of this hobby/industry (such as MQA) given special place at RMAF?  Do the normal expectations of presenters, participants, and RMAF show goers become "optional" when MQA (or any other industry darling) executives are in the room?

 

That much should be transparently obvious to anyone whose head is not in the sand.  It is a trade show, not a scientific conference.  The whole purpose of a trade show is to display new products and issue marketing propaganda.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

wank·er

ˈwaNGkər/

noun

vulgar slang•British

noun: wanker; plural noun: wankers

1. a person who masturbates (used as a term of abuse).

Hi,

Yes - that is the formal definition, but it can be used as a term of endearment. "Oh, you silly wanker", as per "Oh you silly idiot". The definition does not capture that.

 

Essentially, it is not the grave insult word that the definition suggests. The "F" word and "C" word are used to express negative views, but even the "F" word is used non-derogatory such as WTF.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

However, the author would not be able to hide behind an anonymous handle or a pseudonym.

Unless that pseudonym is Sam Tellig.

[jtwrace]

10 minutes 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

 

In the engineering world we do something commonly known as a round robin test, why not conduct MQA analysis the same way?  MQA isn't the most earth shattering technology out there.  There are many different levels of clearances in the real world in place for a reason so an NDA would likely cover all parties in this case.  The doubt raised becomes what's being hidden to the consumer, not the technology or lack thereof.  

[John_Atkinson]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

Unless that pseudonym is Sam Tellig.

 

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

 

[Brinkman Ship]

I don't think there is anything wrong with a Nom De Plume.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let's not get off on that pseudonym tangent again. If 2+2=4, it doesn't matter if Dilbert or Homer Simpson says it. 

[jabbr]

2 minutes 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

 

 

Right. and Chris honored the agreement to hold @Archimagos professional name in confidence ... no excuse for the MQA thugs behavior toward @The Computer Audiophile particularly because they themselves are hiding behind an NDA. 

 

If you really want to be transparent, then refuse to publish articles about secret formats. Aw no?

 

This is all laughable ... particularly because everything that needs to be known about “deblurring” in every axis was developed decades ago... and trust me our universities & national labs & govt’s ability to deblur data in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s was vastly better than the MQA child’s play — that’s why they don’t want to open up the technology to be exposed to ... loud yawning & snoring from the audience. 

 

But please lets be really transparent

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's not get off on that pseudonym tangent again. If 2+2=4, it doesn't matter if Dilbert or Homer Simpson says it. 

Yes. an Anonymous Source brought down the criminal organization known as the Nixon Administration, and saved the country.

 

All that matters is the truth.

[jtwrace]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

and trust me our universities & national labs & govt’s ability to deblur data in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s was vastly better than the MQA child’s play 

Boom!  And still are.  If people only knew...

[John_Atkinson]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's not get off on that pseudonym tangent again. If 2+2=4, it doesn't matter if Dilbert or Homer Simpson says it. 

 

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

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute 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

 

I'm not really concerned with what you guys do with respect to pseudonyms. Live and let live. But, using the pseudonym excuse to discredit 2+2=4 is preposterous. That's the MQA ltd game to distract from the fact that 2+2 really does = 4. 

 

Any adult with an average IQ can see that attacking the messenger rather than the message is something only those who can't attack the message do. 

[jtwrace]

2 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

 

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

 

 

 

33 minutes 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

 

 

[jabbr]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's not get off on that pseudonym tangent again. If 2+2=4, it doesn't matter if Dilbert or Homer Simpson says it. 

 

True. The MQA fist bangers missed an opportunity to rationally discuss the graph shown by you and produced by @Archimago

 

— probably because they don’t understand it

 

That “noise” wouldn’t be my own criticism of MQA but rather is seen in other instances of upsampling vs recording at higher bit rates — for example compare DSD64 vs DSD256 recordings in the ultrasonic region.

 

I’m saying this to be technically fair — obviously MQA wasn’t interested in sending folks to your presentation who were capable of technical responses — perhaps their intention was to disruot?

[sls]

1 hour ago, Richard Dale said:

One of the reasons I don't trust record companies about introducing new audio formats, is the way they forced CDs onto the market in 1992 when CDs were more expensive than LPs and sounded worse than LPs.

 

Certainly in the long term the record companies were proved 100% right in that they made a lot of money out of the switch. Compared to a decent quality vinyl setup in 1992, i found CD players were pretty mediocre and pretty much unlistenable. That is not the case in 2018 of course, but I feel that LPs were killed off when CDs were a very immature format in sound terms, although they had a great advantage of being more convenient than LPs for sure.

 

The CD player was a bit rough at the edges when it came out in 1983. They were very cheap, mine cost about £150 I seem to recall. They took about 3 or 4 years to catch on, by which time there was a marked improvement and jitter was much reduced by the end of the 1980s. In the early 1980s there was DMM vinyl and some of them sounded superb.  

 

One of the main things about CD was to get 74 minutes of music on one disc. I didn't find CD much of a compromise on sound, but then I listen mostly to classical. I still play plenty of records, mostly jazz.

 

Whether you prefer vinyl, CD or streaming, there are good grounds for doing so as they all have their merits. MQA, on the other hand, brings nothing to the party. 

[jtwrace]

2 minutes ago, sls said:

MQA, on the other hand, brings nothing to the party. 

....to the consumer.  

[Rt66indierock]

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

 

 

What an interesting idea. Would you want my accounting, computer and golf professional affiliations as well as audio? And what should I do with my membership in what you call the "We oppose MQA fraternity" hereafter referred to as The Fraternity?

[adamdea]

incidentally can anyone (@Mansr?) tell me whether they have been able to reproduce archimago's findings with the hole in the spectrum for the bruno mars track?

[sls]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm not really concerned with what you guys do with respect to pseudonyms. Live and let live. But, using the pseudonym excuse to discredit 2+2=4 is preposterous. That's the MQA ltd game to distract from the fact that 2+2 really does = 4. 

 

Any adult with an average IQ can see that attacking the messenger rather than the message is something only those who can't attack the message do. 

 

Archimago should simply go by the name of Lord Charles Albert. For all I know, he could be a woman. Then, no one would dare criticise his writing.