|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.59.210.184
In Reply to: RE: Dear Jim Austin, posted by rt66indierock on November 15, 2017 at 12:03:27
"I'm continuing my research into where the pieces that make up the product MQA came from."
Do we really want to know how the MQA hot dogs are made?
;-)
Follow Ups:
Actually where the pieces of MQA came from is a good story. As is the story of how people in the industry missed or mislead about the DRM in MQA which is equally as good.
I'm reminded of one of my favorite sayings from years past:
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance
Baffle them with bullshit
Have we all been baffled with bullshit? I'd love to hear the story.
I'm not seeing BS on the part of the people developing MQA. They did look at a lot of things in an old fashioned or old school way. The BS started with the marketing of MQA.
> > I'm not seeing BS on the part of the people developing MQA. They did look at a lot of things in an old fashioned or old school way. The BS started with the marketing of MQA. < <
I think this is something of a grey area. In the first place, it's never been clear to me how much of any of Meridian's products (including MQA) were actually designed by Bob Stuart. I know that many (if not most) of Meridian's products were designed by others. I think that Bob is very good at spotting talent.
One example here is MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing). My understanding is that it was based on work done by the late Michael Gerzon (Gerzon worked under Peter Craven while studying for his advanced degree). Rhonda Wilson did the bulk of the work on that project - to the point where when the technology was sold to Dolby, Rhonda was part of the deal. Similarly, how much of the work on MQA was Craven's and how much was Stuart's? Were other designers/engineers involved?
And the AES paper that introduced MQA to the world (although not by name) was certainly much more of a marketing piece than one normally finds in peer-reviewed journals. I really don't understand how that paper made it through the peer-review process - there were so many questionable aspects to its contents that I find it embarrassing to the AES. The only thing I can figure is that using his position as a "Fellow" plus having no less than 50 references intimidated the reviewers (even though many of those 50 references do not support his work, and in some cases even contradict it).
> > And the AES paper that introduced MQA to the world (although not by name) was certainly much more of a marketing piece than one normally finds in peer-reviewed journals. I really don't understand how that paper made it through the peer-review process - there were so many questionable aspects to its contents that I find it embarrassing to the AES. The only thing I can figure is that using his position as a "Fellow" plus having no less than 50 references intimidated the reviewers (even though many of those 50 references do not support his work, and in some cases even contradict it).
I regret not having saluted this worthy characterization when it first appeared. That article in an issue guest-edited by a colleague directly spurred Brad Meyer and me to do our blind comparison of hi-rez w RBCD, w detection at the same level as chance, public 3y later. So hear and bravo.
When all the marketing hype is peeled back, what's left? A lossy format with varying results depending on how the original recording was mastered?
"Have we all been baffled with bullshit?"
No. I credit respected people in the industry, such as Charles Hansen, with alerting would-be purchasers to the dubious claims of MQA and the malfeasance of the audio press regarding this matter. You might say he's been pulling double duty. One can make the case that reviewers have an ethical duty to apply a healthy skepticism to new technologies, especially those making grandiose claims. But in the case of MQA, prominent reviewers jettisoned their objectivity in favor of fawning fanboy praise.
The story may be titled "The Greatest Story Never Told by The Audiophile Print Press".
If MQA fails it will be due in large part to the lack of transparency shown by MQA and the audiophile print magazines.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: