Now we know why Amir is pro-MQA

[JJB70]

I completely disagree with Amir's opinion of MQA, but aswith any one of us he is free to hold his own opinions. What is more important is that he is OK about people opining a counter view on this forum and from what I can see has only ever objected to people speaking against MQA when things either turned personal or just got bogged down in circular he said - she said pee'ing contests. That is to be commended I think. Thomas Savage has made clear many times from what I can see that he is not an MQA advocate. Unfortunately any thread on MQA seems to go the same way from what I can see (I'll admit I'm guilty of diving in too).

 

[Cosmik]

I'm assuming that Amir is just having fun being devil's advocate, pretending not to see MQA's roadmap to world domination.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I'm assuming that Amir is just having fun being devil's advocate, pretending not to see MQA's roadmap to world domination.

I prefer to believe you’re right

 

[Sal1950]

Guys,
Let's please remember to be respectful of the site owner and his team. Disagreements are always going to surface but this forum is provided out of the good will of Amir and without this home we'd be back left with mainly subjective controlled sites where very little of are viewpoints are tolerated at all. Using factually based information and respectful tones in our discussions, we were able to help Chris at CA to understand our position and he eventually came over to our side from understanding the anti-consumer thrust of MQA.
Let's try to make Amir our ally and not the enemy in this battle, otherwise no one wins.

 

[agtp]

@Thomas savage , this is what I had in mind regarding MQA «remastering» and @amirm ’s take on MQA as a service of value for consumers:
——-
View attachment 19272

——-
Both @amirm and you talk about remastering here.

You wrote «unless they do a great job remastering the files» and @amirm talked about «potentially hand-tuned new masters» and then he put the weight of his authority back this sentence:

«...some of the MQA content I have heard compared to non-MQA sound remarkably better, indicating better mastering».

I think @RayDunzl ’s back of the envelope calculations show that you (Thomas) were guilty of wishful thinking. As for @amirm , he must have been very lucky picking out the few MQA albums with «better mastering».

So I may not stand corrected after all?

You beat me to it. But you forgot one.

"If that content lights up the 352 kHz light as it did for me in Roon, he is golden. Add to it re-mastering of the content by a human to make it sound better and they are winner."

 

[agtp]

Guys,
Let's please remember to be respectful of the site owner and his team. Disagreements are always going to surface but this forum is provided out of the good will of Amir and without this home we'd be back left with mainly subjective controlled sites where very little of are viewpoints are tolerated at all. Using factually based information and respectful tones in our discussions, we were able to help Chris at CA to understand our position and he eventually came over to our side from understanding the anti-consumer thrust of MQA.
Let's try to make Amir our ally and not the enemy in this battle, otherwise no one wins.

How are these recent comments by you and others any different than the fan-boy comments seen from the Schitt group or other audiophile followings? “They’re just giving their time, effort, etc., out of the goodness of their hearts to provide us with low priced, cost effective, good sounding gear, so don’t criticize.”

 

[agtp]

For some, learning can be scary and threatening. For others, here are some tips to consider in the future.

1) ‘I’m smart and all you guys are stupid” is not a valid argument. It wasn’t in elementary school and isn’t today

2) Be aware of the fallacy of relative privation. I see it used repeatedly on this site.

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation,[2] asserts that:

1. If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
2. The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
3. In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.[note 1] It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong. Since they are fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other (usually worse) actions.
This fallacy is a form of the moral equivalence fallacy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

3) No person nor idea is above scrutiny or criticism, no matter their position, status, contribution, etc.

4) When someone uses the word “free” they are using a marketing buzzword to manipulate and deceive. There is no such thing as free. The more accurate term is, “included.”

My contribution to learning and science.

 

[Wombat]

Let it go.

 

[SIY]

I'm struggling to see the science. But what the hell would I know about science.

 

[Sal1950]

1) ‘I’m smart and all you guys are stupid” is not a valid argument. It wasn’t in elementary school and isn’t today

Physician heal thyself.

 

[Wombat]

How are these recent comments by you and others any different than the fan-boy comments seen from the Schitt group or other audiophile followings? “They’re just giving their time, effort, etc., out of the goodness of their hearts to provide us with low priced, cost effective, good sounding gear, so don’t criticize.”

Telling. 'Out of the goodness of their hearts'? It is a full-on business with Schiit marketing.

Schiit denied product problems that Amir found then quietly addressed some. Schiit orchestrated an on-line smear campaign against Amir and ASR.

The 'good sounding' can be technically disputed. However there is no accounting for taste/preference.

Does this whole posting venture of yours have its source in umbrage over ASR's findings on some Schitt product tests?

 

[agtp]

Let it go.

Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

[March Audio]

Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Im totally lost. Few of us actually agree with Amirs position on MQA, we just dont want to lynch him for it as it appears you do. This fact totally contradicts your view of the alleged group think, mind guards etc.

Your presented view is so obviously fallacious that it is difficult to interpret any other way than trolling.

 

[agtp]

"If you like your FLAC files, you can keep your FLAC files."

Too funny. I wonder if non-US members get this joke and context?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ar-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

 

[Wombat]

Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Product 'Fanboys' blind allegiance = groupthink. Not much individuality there.

You make too many generalisations and assumptions, and don't seem to be able to confine your approach to working through one point at a time, instead continually adding more. Your posts are a bit like a scattergun of many cherry-picked opinions and text, out of context, to support your view.

Debating is combative and looks for winning.

Rational discussion is more productive and seeks consensus if possible.


Your approach is going nowhere.

 

[Krunok]

I hate MQA's "business model" and deceptions regarding "white glove," "deblurring" by means of individualized tuning or fingerprinting or whatever they wanted us to think they were doing with every AD converter used in recordings dating back decades, etc. I also have zero respect for Bob S. That said, I wonder what purpose is served by two current threads which call out our host and his forum as if they are the primary, secondary, or even remotely significant proponents of MQA.

Granted, I was only a lurker on this site for a few years, and only recently a member and limited poster (and not a valuable one at that, as I have no expertise to share with anyone here). Is there a thread or sticky on ASR that I've missed where @amirm has written an editorial outlining advocacy of MQA and urging members and casual readers here to aid in its adoption? It seems pretty obvious that whatever the extent of his personal views on MQA or its creator, he is not silencing any critics. Time and again I see his courteous replies to obvious sarcasm and what sometimes appear to simply be personal attacks. That's not the behavior of someone out to "censor" or silence viewpoints. And even if his posts on the subject actually do (or appear to) advocate MQA and what it stands for, he is still providing a forum for people to openly express their opposition to MQA as well as every other subject in audio. So why the vitriol against him? I don't get it. If someone insists on one viewpoint only being expressed, perhaps that person should create his own website or forum with his own rules on posting and expression. Big deal if a thread was locked. It's still there for anyone to read. It wasn't erased from the site. And now there is this thread with its rude title that has gone to over 200 posts already. Plus the small thread that tries to link Amir directly to snake oil salesmen. smh

I agree with this - this thread is totally unfair to @amirm. Even it's title implies he's part of some MQA conspiracy. IMHO this thread shouldn't have ever been allowed to exist. We can only have thread about pros at cons of MQA but not a thread about someones opinion toward MQA.

 

[amirm]

For some, learning can be scary and threatening.

I see that in all of your posts. Wonder now that you know the ailment, what treatment you prescribe for yourself.

 

[Thomas savage]

Are we all done critiquing the membership and indeed the forum , making up mad theory’s about why amir sees some admirable things in this technology?

You know most of us agree about MQA , the discussion here currently has no new ground to break. If you do have something that might advance the discussion feel free to kick start this argument otherwise it’s time to give it a rest.

 

[Wombat]

God forbid, start up another MQA thread. This one died long ago.

 

[Krunok]

God forbid, start up another MQA thread. This one died long ago.

@Thomas savage , I also think this is a good idea. Let's continue the MQA disucssion in a new thread. IMHO this threead is so insulting it should be not only closed but also deleted.