JA says none of y’all showed up to talk about MQA

[shtf]

On 4/13/2019 at 2:34 PM, crenca said:

 

Yes, now that we are post technical with MQA and understand that it is almost as pure of an audiophile voodoo lump as can be, what's the point in engaging in a pseudo technical debate or Q&A with them and their supporters?   It's better in a diverse and sometimes subtle (sometimes not) way keep them talking about the wider things such as how they see themselves in the voodoo market, what they really think about consumers, etc.

 

Excellent job with your little exchange over on the Stereophile MQA thread, crenca.

 

Though I'm not sure about the "Post technical" thought or mind set as I actually consider that a dangerous concept and for the following reasons:

 

1.  With as much as MQA has invested into their 3-legged race horse, the number of personalities who sold themselves out as well as selling out entire industries, ain't nothin' over 'til it's over.  I heard it once said 20 some years ago by I think it was constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz of the ACLU, "They (ACLU) never lose.  They just keep coming back again and again until they finally win."  The point being that I perceive MQA and their co-conspirators have already exhibited shameless, tireless, and relentless pursuit to make MQA the new standard.

 

2.  Although I have every reason to believe MQA is sonically inferior, just as Peter Moncrieff of IAR said that the naive listener may actually prefer MQA, MQA will never die of natural causes because of its sonic inferiority.  Just too many enthusiasts who could never punch their way out of a musical bag if their lives depended on it - including types like Atkinson and Austin.  IOW, MQA will only die due to its technical inferiorities, never its sonic inferiorities.

 

For these reasons alone, I suspect any "post technical" mindset is not a good thought or strategy.  In fact, I'd suggest one of you technically-inclined types who dug into the bowels of MQA to reverse engineer, etc. should consider coming up with a bulletized executive summary sheet listing all of MQA's failures, shortcomings, etc. so that it becomes far easier to cut'n paste MQA's failures and shortcomings so it becomes overwhelming clear to the casual reader how far short of the technical mark MQA really is.

 

Anyway, my 2-cents.  Again, good job in your comments and demeanor on that Stereophile MQA thread.

 

[shtf]

11 hours ago, crenca said:

 

On this, we could do something with this thread (update, organize, revise, start over):

 

 

 

 

Excellent and thank you.  From what I can tell, any MQA co-conspirator just loves to engage in obfuscation.  In fact, I suspect it's their highest priority and strategy by trying to take anybody down the bottomless technical rabbit hole that essentially wears down anybody observing or participating.  Even though their arguments are weak, incorrect, etc, they do what they can to keep driving everybody down the bottomless rabbit hole to the point where entire audiences are lost or gone.  Almost like they're intentionally trying to reinvent the debate wheel with every thread.  I thought I saw that the other day in the Stereophile / MQA thread you particiapated in and it seems like I've obsevered that very practice numerous times before.

 

Having a nice and concise thread like the one you just started allows you and anybody else to point back to for as long as the sharlatans keep shoveling their manure.  At the same time this gives the casual / non-technical or less technical types the ability to zero in on MQA's technical shortcomings without having to sift through 1000's of comments to find any meat and potatoes.

 

Anyway, thanks.  And maybe now MQA can die of natural causes a little more swiftly.