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

[tmtomh]

7 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

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.

 

He was not "caught making up a fake story."

[GUTB]

32 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

He was not "caught making up a fake story."

 

He was. When asked to list these supposed MQA albums he was unable to because there weren’t that many MQA downloads available. What’s frustrating to me is that the whole story was ridiculous on its face and so few people here couldn’t instantly recognize it as a fruad.

[tmtomh]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

He was. When asked to list these supposed MQA albums he was unable to because there weren’t that many MQA downloads available. What’s frustrating to me is that the whole story was ridiculous on its face and so few people here couldn’t instantly recognize it as a fruad.

 

He was not. The fact that you and others asked him for a full list, and that he eventually provided a much smaller one (2 or 3, I believe) does not mean he was caught.

 

This is why you - and ironically, also Brinkman, along with some others here - are such a toxic presence here: You make definitive assertions without factual support and simply refuse to qualify, correct, or otherwise be accountable for your statements.

[GUTB]

14 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

He was not. The fact that you and others asked him for a full list, and that he eventually provided a much smaller one (2 or 3, I believe) does not mean he was caught.

 

This is why you - and ironically, also Brinkman, along with some others here - are such a toxic presence here: You make definitive assertions without factual support and simply refuse to qualify, correct, or otherwise be accountable for your statements.

 

He was. After multiple attempts to get him to list these MQA download albums, he came up with 2 or 3. In other words, he made it up.

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK, let's move on. We all have much bigger fish to fry and better music to listen to.

[shtf]

20 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

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.

 

Dude.  I’m guessing one of us has issues and after that little cathartic time on your metaphoric couch I’m starting to think it’s me.

 

Let me get this straight.  Some guy whom I do not know (GUTB) tells me without providing any evidence that some other guy I don’t know (Brinkman) lied about his MQA comparisons and now because I’ve been “sufficiently” alerted I’m to refrain from supporting Brinkman and from expressing my MQA convictions and the alleged fraud taking place? 

 

If nothing else, your post seems to substantiate Brinkman’s allegations about your false narratives.   To stave off any more of your dime-store psychology, I should tell you neither you nor Brinkman have any influence on my MQA convictions as they were conceived all by my lonesome 3.5 years ago which happens to be 3.5 years before I knew either you or Brinkman or even this forum existed. 

 

But in the spirit of moving forward and to demonstrate I’ve not completely “lost sight of my tactical position”, I’d like to ask you. 

 

Whom are you speaking of when you say, “some of the most well-known ears in audiophila”?   And what exactly do you mean by “some of the most well-known ears”?

[realhifi]

On 6/20/2018 at 10:10 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

OK, let's move on. We all have much bigger fish to fry and better music to listen to.

I’m curious as to why this particular discussion would need intervention where others I’ve seen (much more intense and personal) have been let to go on. 

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, realhifi said:

I’m curious as to why this particular discussion would need intervention where others I’ve seen (much more intense and personal) have been let to go on. 

 

Because it has become a  back and forth between 2 posters that is repetitive and doesn't advance the topic.

[Ralf11]

but a back and forth between multiple posters that is repetitive and goes way off topic is fine...

 

 

it's fine with me too, as Articles x and y assure me I don't need to click on it

[Ralf11]

ok, back on broken topic...

 

 

 

[realhifi]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Because it has become a  back and forth between 2 posters that is repetitive and doesn't advance the topic.

Thanks. Not who I was asking the question to but thanks all the same. 

[realhifi]

On 6/20/2018 at 9:44 AM, GUTB said:

 

He was. When asked to list these supposed MQA albums he was unable to because there weren’t that many MQA downloads available. What’s frustrating to me is that the whole story was ridiculous on its face and so few people here couldn’t instantly recognize it as a fruad.

I think you’d be surprised at how many people caught the drift of what was going on. 

Many are too subtle in their reactions or comments that it feels as if it wasn’t noticed. It was. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, realhifi said:

Many are too subtle in their reactions or comments that it feels as if it wasn’t noticed.

 

Unless it's an anti MQA comment then subtlety seems to be abandoned altogether . I am anti MQA but sometimes these multiple anti MQA threads full of what might be seen by some as unbalanced opinions bordering on vitriol doesn't really advance the cause IMO. Again, I am anti MQA.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Most people can see comments for what they are. The screaming on the side of I love MQA and those screaming on the side of I hate MQA are usually ignored. Those in the middle with reasoned arguments either way are the ones most people pay attention to.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The screaming on the side of I love MQA and those screaming on the side of I hate MQA are usually ignored. Those in the middle with reasoned arguments either way are the ones most people pay attention to.

 

Yes I agree completely.

[shtf]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Most people can see comments for what they are. The screaming on the side of I love MQA and those screaming on the side of I hate MQA are usually ignored. Those in the middle with reasoned arguments either way are the ones most people pay attention to.

 

That’s fine.  However, I hope you’re not suggesting that those, shall we say more emotionally engaged are incapable of using logic and/or reason.  In fact, sometimes those more emotionally charged are more emotional because they think they may seem something others don’t see.

 

More importantly, there is also such a thing as righteous anger.  For example. When I consider MQA’s potentially monopolizing endgame, its false promises and actual shortcomings, how an inferior performing technology even got outta’ the barn in the first place, and who helped pave the way, I like to think I’m merely expressing a righteous anger. 

 

Just sayin’    

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

That’s fine.  However, I hope you’re not suggesting that those, shall we say more emotionally engaged are incapable of using logic and/or reason.  In fact, sometimes those more emotionally charged are more emotional because they think they may seem something others don’t see.

 

More importantly, there is also such a thing as righteous anger.  For example. When I consider MQA’s potentially monopolizing endgame, its false promises and actual shortcomings, how an inferior performing technology even got outta’ the barn in the first place, and who helped pave the way, I like to think I’m merely expressing a righteous anger. 

 

Just sayin’ 

I'm not suggesting that. There's a certain segment of the pro and anti MQA jihad that's incapable of critical thinking. They are on a bandwagon and there's no slowing it down. Fortunately these people at the ends of the continuum are a small minority of people.

[PeterSt]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Fortunately these people at the ends of the continuum are a small minority of people.

 

You mean that all what's in between contributes to a sensible discussion ?

Chris, it drags down your forum. Possibly you are blind to it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You mean that all what's in between contributes to a sensible discussion ?

Chris, it drags down your forum. Possibly you are blind to it.

More likely there is a language difference in what I'm saying and what you're hearing. 

 

Anti MQA and pro MQA people don't equal jihadists at the end of the continuum. It's the people who can't logically look at something and make a decision based on facts and who extol one or the other without regard to anything that are the edge cases who most people don't even listen to.

[Ralf11]

those with reasoned arguments seem strongly anti-MQA, and not in the middle

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 6/22/2018 at 11:09 PM, PeterSt said:

 

You mean that all what's in between contributes to a sensible discussion ?

Chris, it drags down your forum. Possibly you are blind to it.

 

Yes I agree. IMO there is not enough people in the reasonable middle ground countering the extreme anti MQAists. There are people here that have joined relatively recently and have largely either started anti MQA threads or posted in them.That was by the way a criterion suggested by some to suggest a shill (whether pro or anti MQA).

 

Also, phrases like "righteous anger" and "there is nothing to debate" don't IMO encourage people to go against the herd. Those that do get labelled shills (and some were of course) but again, it's an environment that deals harshly with dissent.

 

While I agree with you Peter that it is not a great look for the forum, for the record, CC has done a great job IMO in not steering or censuring others' opinions.

[mansr]

11 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

IMO there is not enough people in the reasonable middle ground

There is no reasonable middle ground.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

40 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is no reasonable middle ground.

[james45974]

54 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is no reasonable middle ground.

That is my thought also.  What would a middle ground in respect to MQA conceivably look like?  Something like MQA is OK for the low end but for ultimate fidelity it is best to use unadulterated sources?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, james45974 said:

That is my thought also.  What would a middle ground in respect to MQA conceivably look like?  Something like MQA is OK for the low end but for ultimate fidelity it is best to use unadulterated sources?

MQA is by design all or nothing.