-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
More MQA krap!
- Thread starter gene_stl
- Start date
- Status
I wonder what he means by the final line:
“GoldenSound's tests are a missed opportunity.”
The implication as I read it, is that GS should have snuck in better tests.
This is a very curious defence of MQA. No one should have to do tests by stealth in the first place.
“GoldenSound's tests are a missed opportunity.”
The implication as I read it, is that GS should have snuck in better tests.
This is a very curious defence of MQA. No one should have to do tests by stealth in the first place.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 2,731
- Likes
- 7,994
Comments on a few excerpts from @Jim Austin 's piece:
"Anti-MQA predators posing as impartial jellyfish" - this kind of introduction does not in my view establish one's bona fides as "not an MQA partisan" or someone who can comment credibly on the rhetorical excess and ad hominems employed by those critical of MQA.
Similarly, the listing of the names of prominent mastering engineers who like MQA, and the total omission of a balanced listing of other prominent industry names who have written or spoken against MQA, seems unbalanced.
"Also well established - nothing new - is that MQA by design allows more aliasing than other methods." - this statement seems to be part of a pattern, evident in one or more of his previous MQA pieces as well, of not acknowledging MQA's downsides until they are brought to the fore by MQA's critics, and then dismissing those downsides as "well known/old news" while at the same time denigrating those critics and not taking proper account of their efforts in surfacing and clarifying the significance of these downsides.
As for the concluding thought that "GoldenSounds' tests are a missed opportunity" - given that he never had any apparent thought or intention of taking that opportunity himself, it reads to my eyes like a statement not made in good faith. In other words, I see no evidence that Jim Austin actually thinks what @GoldenOne tried to do actually was a worthwhile thing, and so calling it a missed opportunity doesn't seem genuine to me.
"Anti-MQA predators posing as impartial jellyfish" - this kind of introduction does not in my view establish one's bona fides as "not an MQA partisan" or someone who can comment credibly on the rhetorical excess and ad hominems employed by those critical of MQA.
Similarly, the listing of the names of prominent mastering engineers who like MQA, and the total omission of a balanced listing of other prominent industry names who have written or spoken against MQA, seems unbalanced.
"Also well established - nothing new - is that MQA by design allows more aliasing than other methods." - this statement seems to be part of a pattern, evident in one or more of his previous MQA pieces as well, of not acknowledging MQA's downsides until they are brought to the fore by MQA's critics, and then dismissing those downsides as "well known/old news" while at the same time denigrating those critics and not taking proper account of their efforts in surfacing and clarifying the significance of these downsides.
As for the concluding thought that "GoldenSounds' tests are a missed opportunity" - given that he never had any apparent thought or intention of taking that opportunity himself, it reads to my eyes like a statement not made in good faith. In other words, I see no evidence that Jim Austin actually thinks what @GoldenOne tried to do actually was a worthwhile thing, and so calling it a missed opportunity doesn't seem genuine to me.
Last edited:
- Status
