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

[Brinkman Ship]

Post, by "art" at SHF...a devastating paragraph that basically sums it all up concerning the press and subjective reports about MQA-

 

"Done a lot of listening to MQA, even with a Grammy-winning engineer at his studio and his 200k home system. For a story coming in a mainstream weekly. He thought MQA was joke, of course. I was the AXPONA audio fest earlier in the year, various listening rooms and had hosts switch back and forth between MQA and the same hi-res files. Of course MQA was never as good, and it was obvious to the others in the rooms. Lots of head shaking. An Aurender rep told me that MQA is now saying their files are as good as 24/96 of the same mastering (they've stopped saying "better"). But they aren't even as good. That's the thing. Audible artifacts --- distortion masquerading as detail— were even obvious. But more so, MQA files are less 3D, and have a less inviting listening experience overall compared with the same non-MQA file. Every single time. "Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ... "

 

No "hardened show goers wowed"

No jaws hitting the floor

No  new worlds birthed

No scientific revolutions

No "what digital should have been 30 years ago"

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mcintosh-passes-on-mqa-calls-it-lossy-and-distorted.757191/page-2#post-18909844

[shtf]

 

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.

[Brinkman Ship]

13 hours ago, 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.

I am not 100% sure that Ethics and Morals are the only thing at play here....I think editors of magazines that cover esoteric hobbies really want to be market makers for the prestige and to compound their influence..even more so considering there are 2 US publications left in print. Jon Valin thinks he is a champ for "discovering" Magico speakers...I think Atkinson desperately wanted to be remembered as the pundit who called the MQA Era first...

 

..well of course the desire to create a market for ad revenue and questionable listening skills are at play too..

[Shadders]

Hi,

In the end, 99% of people will not hear any difference between High Resolution and MQA - since 99% of people are not into Hifi.

 

The only issue i can see is if the labels force MQA upon everyone. If they do, then we know it is because of DRM and not sound quality, and we would then know this was the labels intention after all.

 

I do not see how giving a percentage to MQA for no payback is good business strategy.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[NOMBEDES]

It may be time for the villagers to burn the castle.

[shtf]

2 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I am not 100% sure that Ethics and Morals are the only thing at play here....I think editors of magazines that cover esoteric hobbies really want to be market makers for the prestige and to compound their influence..even more so considering there are 2 US publications left in print. Jon Valin thinks he is a champ for "discovering" Magico speakers...I think Atkinson desperately wanted to be remembered as the pundit who called the MQA Era first...

 

..well of course the desire to create a market for ad revenue and questionable listening skills are at play too..

 

Agreed.  Even so, you neglected to mention reasonableness or within reason.  You also neglected to mention, at what cost e.g. at what cost to the music industry, to the high-end audio sector, to manufacturers, to the consumer, and ultimately at what cost to their own reputations, etc.

 

But now we’re back to motive and no matter how I look at their original intent / motive, it all pans out the same to me:

• Lacking listening skills AND thinking nobody has superior listening abilities than they, so nobody can hold them accountable for their views on performance.
• Even if there are those calling them on the carpet for their performance endorsements, they count on it being just a he said / she said scenario.  After all, listening is entirely subjective. 
• Ushering in inferior rather than superior technologies / products.  Thereby lacking understanding or not caring about the single fundamental purpose for “high-end” audio’s existing in the first place.
• Lack of integrity and character.  Saying whatever they want in order to further their cause e.g. to convince us that somehow a tricycle would get us to Dairy Queen faster and with greater pleasure than a bicycle.
• Lack of apparent knowledge.  Maybe deep down they really believe a tricycle would get us to Dairy Queen faster and with greater pleasure than a bicycle.
• Lack of reasonableness.  There's no getting around bad actors.  If only they would have tempered their initial outlandish endorsements, they possibly could have carried this alleged fraud much further.  But arrogance and a history of duping the masses has a way of generating over-confidence.  IOW, always pushing the envelope for more.
• The continued cover up or defense posturing trying to convince us we know not what we speak that alienates others by their name calling, trolls, idiots, conspiracy theorists, tinfoil hattery, leaving MQA’s performance judgement to the “real experts” because too much is at stake, etc.  Thereby implying that we lack the skills to judge MQA’s performance.  And by one who himself lacks listening skills.
• The intentionally destructive behavior creating historic levels of strife and division in an already fractured cottage industry.

The magazines and their editors with their ridiculous MQA endorsements either knew exactly what they were doing or they were clueless.  They cannot have their cake and eat it too and they F’ed up BIG TIME.  They may not have counted the costs of their caper 3.5 years ago, but I’ll bet dollars-to-donuts they’re counting the costs now.

 

IMO, they are in need of a morals and ethics lesson but that was their parent’s job and they obviously fell short of the mark. Like I’ve said several times, in a perverted way, I’m thankful for MQA’s introduction to high-end audio because it took something so over-the-top and ridiculous as MQA to expose these charlatans.

 

Personally, I think Harley and Atkinson have done much damage to their magazines and to the industry and should step down and if they won’t voluntarily step down then the industry should demand it.  They can never recovery from this blunder and when they are gone that’s when the hope of the industry recovering begins.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

It may be time for the villagers to burn the castle.

 

Please help fund my pitchfork startup on Kicstrater

 

[NOMBEDES]

Don't forget the "Record Industry" has a long history of total disregard for both artists and consumers.

 

1.  Black Blues Artists signing "contracts".  Contracts they may have not been able to read.  

2.  Sexual exploitation of performers.  (Leslie Gore, Kesha)

 

MQA?

[John_Atkinson]

9 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

"Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ... "

 

My current HF cutoff is around 14kHz - see fig.5 at https://www.stereophile.com/content/enigmacoustics-sopranino-electrostatic-supertweeter-measurements

 

I also have a  small sensitivity notch in the mid treble, but well within the range regarded as "normal," according to the audiologist.

 

And regarding the scare quotes around the word "journalist," the INS accepted my qualifications when I applied for a visa to work in the USA. That's got to be worth something, eh!

 

9 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

I think Atkinson desperately wanted to be remembered as the pundit who called the MQA Era first...

 

I think your psychic powers need an overhaul ?

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[Brinkman Ship]

Thanks for your response. Note, aside from the last line you you quoted above,, I copied and pasted the opinion in the OP verbatim from another forum. ?

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Don't forget the "Record Industry" has a long history of total disregard for both artists and consumers.

 

This can't be emphasized enough, nor is it up for any debate. Absolutely abysmal treatment by the record labels of both the artists/content creators, and the customers/buyers over many decades.

 

I can't really think of another industry that treats it's suppliers and end-users so poorly.

[Ralf11]

Lots of parasites treat their hosts that way

[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.

[firedog]

On 6/17/2018 at 5:53 PM, Brinkman Ship said:

Every single time. "Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ... "

Don't actually think this is relevant at all. Listening skills mean a lot more that the ability to hear very high frequencies. My ability to hear high frequencies is way down from years ago, but I can hear and understand much more of what is going on in playback than I could then. I can also hear all sorts of things younger people can't, because they don't know how to listen or what to listen for. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

35 minutes ago, firedog said:

On 6/18/2018 at 12:53 AM, Brinkman Ship said:

Every single time. "Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ... "

Don't actually think this is relevant at all. Listening skills mean a lot more that the ability to hear very high frequencies. My ability to hear high frequencies is way down from years ago, but I can hear and understand much more of what is going on in playback than I could then. I can also hear all sorts of things younger people can't, because they don't know how to listen or what to listen for. 

 

I note it is not Brinkman's quote in the opening post but it does illuminate the ignorance of the person that did say this. ..[ "Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ... "]

 

I wager that if "some graying dude" considered to be an audio icon came out against MQA, those lobbying against MQA would not ask for the audiologist's report.

[tipunch]

16 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Please help fund my pitchfork startup on Kicstrater

 

[shtf]

21 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Quote

The irony is stunning — not that you likely care.

 

 

I appreciate the emotional touch.

 

[Brinkman Ship]

15 minutes 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.

 

 

FYI..GUTBEE is full of shit. Disregard any of his posts about MQA> He redefines the paradigm of willful ignorance

and false narratives...again, with respect to MQA.

[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.

[shtf]

51 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

 

See? You didn’t care.

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

FYI..GUTBEE is full of shit. Disregard any of his posts about MQA> He redefines the paradigm of willful ignorance

and false narratives...again, with respect to MQA.

You've been warned. This isn't appropriate. 

[asdf1000]

On 6/18/2018 at 12:53 AM, Brinkman Ship said:

An Aurender rep told me that MQA is now saying their files are as good as 24/96 of the same mastering (they've stopped saying "better"). But they aren't even as good. That's the thing. Audible artifacts --- distortion masquerading as detail— were even obvious. But more so, MQA files are less 3D, and have a less inviting listening experience overall compared with the same non-MQA file. Every single time.

 

I'd prefer MQA go away but we keep going in this circle.

 

This is what @Archimago said:

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

It's very easy to confirm yourself too.  I used Audio Hijack on Mac and Spek analyzer, for the Tidal album 'Magnificat'

 

2L has a song from this album for comparison on their site too

 

http://www.2l.no/hires/

 

 

[asdf1000]

On 6/19/2018 at 1:31 PM, GUTB said:

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 first (and last?) time I agreed with GUTB.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38500-listen-for-your-self-2-albums-in-hirez-and-mqa/?do=findComment&comment=778964

 

[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.

[asdf1000]

Here is the infamous thread