|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.54.49.94
In Reply to: RE: How do YOU feel about MQA? posted by Michael Lavorgna on October 27, 2016 at 19:56:13
>>>> In any event, your 'proper comparison' theory has been addressed in any number of reviews and show reports.Really? Show me where.
>>>>but you have to admit that someone like John Atkinson listening to his own recordings pre- and post-MQA is fairly compelling. No?
As I wrote to John on a thread that's presumably way, way down, obviously doing what he did is what needs to be done. However, I also noted that in his pseudo-blind test he said he identified MQA 5 out of 8 times. To me, that's not very impressive, particularly with your own recordings. Statistically, someone can score 50% just by guessing. If it was 7 or 8 of 8, I'd be more convinced.
Don't forget, this is being touted by some as a "breakthrough" and beyond anything we've heard before.
Doug
Edits: 10/27/16Follow Ups:
Really? Show you where?
You are making the claims, Doug. I'd think you'd have the appropriate research to substantiate them. No?
Your reference to JA's "pseudo-blind test" is yet another red herring, Doug. While I understand your desire to shift the subject, the fact remains that JA listened to his own recordings pre- and post-MQA. Your point was no one heard a proper comparison.
Hi Mike,
You're putting up straw-man arguments. Sorry.
My point when I wrote that article was that proper comparisons weren't done. From what I can tell, I was right.
As far as doing my research, I did. Read that article. I read all the articles I could find on MQA and even read the patents. Sorry, no comparisons I could find. That's why I say "show me."
As for JA, yes, finally, someone did. But then he did and scored 5 of 8. I explained why that didn't impress. However, I'm all for more comparisons! But like I said, it's on the ones making the claims.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
I beg to differ, Doug. I am refuting your claim that proper comparisons were not done. Get it?
Yes Mike, I get it. Now pony up -- show me all those comparisons...
Doug
Pony up? Get along little doggie ;-)
The CES comparisons with Peter McGrath's files. John Atkinson's comparisons with his own files. My comparisons which I detailed in my MQA review.
Are those enough ponies for you, Doug?
Wow, so that's what's in your deck?
Ok, I'll just move along, thanks. We don't have to discuss it anymore.
Doug
My deck?I can see why you'd like get along, little doggie but let's talk about people like Morten Lindberg of 2L. He's gung ho on MQA -- based on his own recordings.
Care to explain the lack of rigor in his comparisons, Doug?
My deck seems to be fuller than yours but please do press the issue.
Edits: 10/27/16
I thought you'd be able to direct me to much more. Frankly Mike, it's OK to just let this go in this particular part of the thread.
Doug
How much more do you need, Doug?
Quite a bit more than that. If you're hanging your raves on those items, go for it. Like I said, let's drop for this part unless there's more.
Doug
My raves?
That is exactly where you cross the line of reason, Doug. But please do stick your guns and promote the "If Doug hasn't heard it, it doesn't exist." thing. Just don't count on me to be a cheerleader.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: