Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Archie and Paul Miller proved there is aliasing and artifacts. Poor JA simply did not have the chops to do proper measurements

and he was shown up. Not much more to say about it.

 

The only other explanation is that he had no intention of doing proper measurements in order to show MQA as a viable

technology.

 

A truly humiliating episode in Stereophile's history.

Yes, I read Paul Miller's articles and Archimago's, my point was that if one accepts JA's measurements as he described them, wouldn't that have "proved" that the assertion of any sort of time-domain correction wasn't possible?  So he used the measurement to "prove" one aspect, but in the process, (unintentionally) debunked the other aspect.  Was he aware of the contradiction, and is that why he proceeded to declare that "listening" was the "only" way to test the time-domain aspect?

请教别人一次是5分钟的傻子,从不请教别人是一辈子的傻子

 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Yes, I read Paul Miller's articles and Archimago's, my point was that if one accepts JA's measurements as he described them, wouldn't that have "proved" that the assertion of any sort of time-domain correction wasn't possible?  So he used the measurement to "prove" one aspect, but in the process, debunked the other aspect.  Was he aware of the contradiction, and is that why he proceeded to declare that "listening" was the "only" way to test the time-domain aspect?

ah yes i see your point...

Link to comment
1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

No, he is not aware of the contradiction.  Bob S and others have subversively (it is subversive because they really know better) implanted the idea in JA's mind that that what happens in the frequency domain can be separated from what happens in the time domain.  Indeed, this contradiction has become a kind of Audiophile myth or article of faith.  JA himself even admits it at times, but then at other times reasons, opines, and meanders on and on as if it is true.   It's all part of the technical incompetence of Audiophiledom in general, and how this is leveraged by those who play the confidence game (Bob S) to their advantage...

correction...it reflects on JA’s incompetence...not a whole group.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

correction...it reflects on JA’s incompetence...not a whole group.

 

I only partly agree - there is a more competent "audiophile" consumer, but as a group the "insiders" or "Old Guard" believe in this myth and they, at least up until recently, set the tone.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I only partly agree - there is a more competent "audiophile" consumer, but as a group the "insiders" or "Old Guard" believe in this myth and they, at least up until recently, set the tone.

Well I believe that many audiophiles have deluded themselves into thinking they are armchair engineers, and they swallow alot of the marketing piffle spewed, and repeated by magazines, whole.

 

Those of us who know our technical limitations have to find manufacturers we trust and support them. Yes, and their ARE companies I fully trust.

 

Where the ship has hit the rocks is that many companies are now going to be held under suspicion.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

Here is my question:  If the spectra of the original WAV file overlay exactly with the decoded MQA version up to the 44.1kHz Nyquist frequency of the original recording, then how is it possible for there to be any correction of time-domain errors?

 

A graphed FFT of a piece of music, mostly likely averaged over many seconds, is a very crude measure, whereas the fabled time domain correction, if present at all, is extremely subtle and will be totally invisible on such a graph.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, ralphfcooke said:

Is it possible that now Stereophile et al are now under the umbrella of the HiFi News management that the 

'unthinking' praise of MQA might be given more serious discussion?

 

Just to clarify the relationship between Stereophile and HiFi News, the person who makes all decisions regarding content and policies at Stereophile is still me.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fokus said:

 

A graphed FFT of a piece of music, mostly likely averaged over many seconds, is a very crude measure, whereas the fabled time domain correction, if present at all, is extremely subtle and will be totally invisible on such a graph.

Would you say that it is correct to use a term like "exact" or "exact match" between two such very crude measurements?  And to conclude that a crude measurement is "proof" of anything?

请教别人一次是5分钟的傻子,从不请教别人是一辈子的傻子

 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

Would you say that it is correct to use a term like "exact" or "exact match" between two such very crude measurements?  And to conclude that a crude measurement is "proof" of anything?

 

I have no problems with that. An 'exact match' depends on the viewing distance. Two satellite photos of the same plot of land my show an exact match, even when in the second photo there is a red Smartie on the lawn.

 

Once more, in this context I have no problems at all with this.

 

Link to comment
On 10/11/2018 at 9:32 AM, Shadders said:

Tidal’s hi-res Masters (MQA) tracks surpass one million

https://www.whathifi.com/news/tidals-hi-res-masters-tracks-surpass-one-million

Once Tidal goes down the financial drain that fact will be irrelevant.

On 10/11/2018 at 10:38 AM, John_Atkinson said:

Just to clarify the relationship between Stereophile and HiFi News, the person who makes all decisions regarding content and policies at Stereophile is still me.

That is until your positions and that of AV Tech are at odds. Then you'll dance the corp tune or move on down the road. Maybe there's a place for you at TAS, we've seen those moves before.  ?

 

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Sal1950 said:
On 10/11/2018 at 10:38 AM, John_Atkinson said:

Just to clarify the relationship between Stereophile and HiFi News, the person who makes all decisions regarding content and policies at Stereophile is still me.



That is until your positions and that of AV Tech are at odds. Then you'll dance the corp tune or move on down the road.

 

Again, I specifically addressed this question in my seminar at RMAF. When the video is posted, you can see my answer.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Once Tidal goes down the financial drain that fact will be irrelevant.

 

 

Nope. With the files converted, there is nothing that could keep the labels from withdrawing all other versions and flooding the market with MQA, openly or not.

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...