All I can say is that I did not block anything at any time. In fact, as you can see I don't moderate the messages at all. The only time I ever erase any messages is when I see a clear case of spamming or if the writer posted something then deleted it and I just want to clean up any "residue".
I do not know if Blogger erases messages on it's own. If so, then this must be an example.
Now as for the message itself... I have it opened up right now in another window and I can tell you that it was thoughtfully composed and did not appear rushed or incomplete. Instead of posting the whole note to respect whatever reason resulted in the deletion, I will just summarize a few points which I don't think would be contentious:
- There may have been different versions of encoded files released so noise floor could have varied.
- He's grateful for 2L for releasing the test bench. There's potentially "cross-checking" that needs to be done to make sure the versions released are from "consistent sources". (I of course agree and thank 2L for allowing us to compare the different resolutions.)
- Acknowledgement of working on questions posed - I assume he's referring to the eventual Q&A posted in Computer Audiophile.
- ** The main objection to the results: He feels the noise floor is equivalent to 22-bits below 10kHz and "always below the noise-floor of the recording".
- Regarding the PS Audio blog post: the development decoder was not updated to production version and "would have been operating in 'bypass'" mode so he felt Mr. McGowan and company were not experiencing the benefits of MQA.
That's pretty well the gist of it... I trust there's no "mischief" here and most of these points are covered and expanded on in the Q&A post on CA.
Unlike recent political events such as the "debates" among Republican candidates :-). No, I trust there's nothing like a bar brawl going on here. As I noted, Mr. Stuart's response was well composed and gentlemanly throughout - as I would of course expect from him and for these discussions basically about academic and empirical matters.
That's all I know about this. And as far as I can tell, the Computer Audiophile Q&A didn't really say much we didn't know already and still there are lingering questions about the nature of the claimed "losslessness", questions about the "de-blur" algorithm, and noise floor characteristics across the spectrum.
By the way, while you're on the Hi-Fi+ article, check out page 2 and the response on why A/B testing isn't used in their demos:
BS: We didn’t want to do public A-B tests, because they are completely uncontrolled. You know what it’s like – you put three audiophiles in a room and you get nine opinions. In fact, we do A-B tests all the time, with people who understand the context. So, for example, whenever we were with someone who had made the recording, we’d do the A-B test on the spot.
But ultimately, we didn’t want the discussion to devolve to A-B testing, when in fact it was about bringing the sound from the studio.Wow, talk about a slap to the face of the audiophile public as people who must not "understand the context"! The most important thing A/B listening would have answered is whether it sounds any different to those in attendance. If it does then I imagine this would at least spread the word and promote curiosity for the average audiophile. Of course demo rooms would be suboptimal for ultimate critical listening but companies typically bring out their best gear with easily 5 if not 6-figure systems and can treat the rooms to some extent. If not under the guidance of a Meridian-approved set-up where perhaps time-coherrent playback is ensured to bring out MQA's performance, then where practically is an audiophile supposed to audition MQA? Surely "revolutionary" technology can be demonstrated to be obviously different, right? Are we to go on faith - "trust me, this works!" - and just buy a new MQA DAC and demand MQA-encoded music when the technical details appear unclear and there's not even an attempt at demonstrating benefits?
I would imagine that only if most people heard no difference would there be a devolution into doubts or debates around the A/B procedure used. Is that the concern?
Anyway... Back to summer :-).