MQA is Vaporware

[JoeWhip]

I am sorry, but I just can’t take JVS seriously. Never did.

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 5/22/2022 at 1:08 PM, JoshM said:

It's not clear which Steely Dan tapes, exactly, were destroyed in the Universal fire. Moreover, there's a long, complicated, contested history of which Steely Dan CDs (long before the Universal fire) used the original analog tapes versus digital transfers made in the early-'80s.

 

I spent a bit of time in the Aughties looking at this.

 

Aja is probably the most controversial example as Roger Nichols found the MFSL version of Aja to be lacking, looked into it, and found they used a lacquer cutting master to make that CD.  Not exactly the "Original Master Recording" that MoFi promises.  Eventually, a set of Steely Dan remasters came out of this snafu in the mid-90s that sounded pretty good, except for Aja.

 

 

I found these older digital versions (CDs) of Aja to be the best.  They are very similar to each other, but not identical:

 

MCAD-37214-DIDX 55 (Japan)

MCLD-19145 (UK)

 

The point here is that major record companies never cared about the quality of the recordings available to consumers.

 

mQa marketing pitch to record companies is that it's "good enough" for consumers AND audiophiles, who don't deserve the unadulterated digital masters.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

mQa marketing pitch to record companies is that it's "good enough" for consumers AND audiophiles, who don't deserve the unadulterated digital masters.

And, they all get to wet their beaks on the licensing. 

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

mQa marketing pitch to record companies is that it's "good enough" for consumers AND audiophiles, who don't deserve the unadulterated digital masters.

 

 

This is why I am a fan of supporting the artist, and not the record company. I always buy as direct from the artist as I can, if I can. Sadly, it's not always possible.

[firedog]

8 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

I am sorry, but I just can’t take JVS seriously. Never did.

I think he is a good Classical music reviewer.

[Archimago]

On 6/4/2022 at 3:52 PM, firedog said:

I think he is a good Classical music reviewer.

 

I agree. And I think he should stick to what he's good at.

[yahooboy]

On 6/6/2022 at 10:11 PM, Archimago said:

 

I agree. And I think he should stick to what he's good at.

Maybe we should commend him instead, it is a special gift to mention MQA over 20 times on a page with less than 1800 words.....

[botrytis]

I could use a WTF emotional for the last post....

[UkPhil]

Planet Saving Quality.......

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

Planet Saving Quality.......

 

Desperate much?

[GoldenOne]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

Planet Saving Quality.......

How in the hell have they come up with these figures??

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

How in the hell have they come up with these figures??

 

It is marketing - anything can be said. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Is it April 1st?

[Iving]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

Planet Saving Quality.......

 

Truly sick [old meaning]

[GoldenOne]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

It is marketing - anything can be said. 

But seriously at what point do claims like this cross the line of 'sketchy marketing' and actually break some rules.
These seem outrageously misleading

[GoldenOne]

https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html

[Currawong]

I do wish that they'd started up MQA in Australia to begin with. They would have had their collective asses handed to them on a platter by various government agencies by now.

[Archimago]

45 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

But seriously at what point do claims like this cross the line of 'sketchy marketing' and actually break some rules.
These seem outrageously misleading

 

Co-opting environmental concerns like this is truly despicable by the company.

 

Let's look at the numbers here.

 

365days x 6hrs/d = 2,190 hours

24/192 2.0 stream (9,216kbps) compressed FLAC assuming conservative 30% compression = 1.125MB/s x 0.7 x 60 = 47.25MB/minute = 2,835MB/h

 

Therefore per year = 2,835MB/h x 2190h = 6,208,650MB = 6,209GB = 6.2TB/year streamed

 

Compare this to MQA - 24/48 2.0 stream (2,304kbps) which is 1/4 - and let's assume again 30% FLAC lossless compressed efficiency like above, so we're looking at 1.55TB/year streamed.

 

A conservative difference of less than 4.7TB streamed according to them = 5 return flights London/Berlin = 9 car journeys London/Manchester = 19 trees planted?

 

Can someone confirm that this is what the source "Carbon calculator" actually says is the environmental impact of sending 4.7TB across the Internet over 365 days?

 

Obviously even this calculation is over-estimating things...

1. Who listens to just 24/192 music!? ;-) Vast majority 16/44.1 out there anyways.

2. 30% FLAC compression too low for most good classical/jazz recordings, probably closer to 40-50% in real life. Also, MQA processing actually makes the efficiency of FLAC go down so we might still be looking at 30% compression with MQA, but 45% with the original 24/192.

 

And obviously switching to MQA has costs - environmental and otherwise:

1. The streaming service will need to pre-process all the native hi-res data to MQA, embed the cryptographic signature, and presumably there's implementation of the Ultimaco hardware infrastructure. All this needs energy and manufacturing. Who knows if each streaming service will need to duplicate this for their set of music files.

2. The consumers are encouraged to ditch otherwise perfectly good DACs for MQA-capable ones - increased trash? more manufacturing carbon footprint, etc.

3. The extra processing to decode MQA whether in extra cycles each time played back in software on your computer or implemented in the DAC hardware itself accumulates in unnecessary excess energy.

 

All this so we can listen to lossy "hi-res" audio? MQA truly is getting very desperate...

 

BTW: Where did that graphic come from? Is this on their website or did they just distribute this over social media; need to send the link to make that complaint?

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Co-opting environmental concerns like this is truly despicable by the company.

 

Let's look at the numbers here.

 

365days x 6hrs/d = 2,190 hours

24/192 2.0 stream (9,216kbps) compressed FLAC assuming conservative 30% compression = 1.125MB/s x 0.7 x 60 = 47.25MB/minute = 2,835MB/h

 

Therefore per year = 2,835MB/h x 2190h = 6,208,650MB = 6,209GB = 6.2TB/year streamed

 

Compare this to MQA - 24/48 2.0 stream (2,304kbps) which is 1/4 - and let's assume again 30% FLAC lossless compressed efficiency like above, so we're looking at 1.55TB/year streamed.

 

A conservative difference of less than 4.7TB streamed according to them = 5 return flights London/Berlin = 9 car journeys London/Manchester = 19 trees planted?

 

Can someone confirm that this is what the source "Carbon calculator" actually says is the environmental impact of sending 4.7TB across the Internet over 365 days?

 

Obviously even this calculation is over-estimating things...

1. Who listens to just 24/192 music!? ;-) Vast majority 16/44.1 out there anyways.

2. 30% FLAC compression too low for most good classical/jazz recordings, probably closer to 40-50% in real life. Also, MQA processing actually makes the efficiency of FLAC go down so we might still be looking at 30% compression with MQA, but 45% with the original 24/192.

 

And obviously switching to MQA has costs - environmental and otherwise:

1. The streaming service will need to pre-process all the native hi-res data to MQA, embed the cryptographic signature, and presumably there's implementation of the Ultimaco hardware infrastructure. All this needs energy and manufacturing. Who knows if each streaming service will need to duplicate this for their set of music files.

2. The consumers are encouraged to ditch otherwise perfectly good DACs for MQA-capable ones - increased trash? more manufacturing carbon footprint, etc.

3. The extra processing to decode MQA whether in extra cycles each time played back in software on your computer or implemented in the DAC hardware itself accumulates in unnecessary excess energy.

 

All this so we can listen to lossy "hi-res" audio? MQA truly is getting very desperate...

 

BTW: Where did that graphic come from? Is this on their website or did they just distribute this over social media; need to send the link to make that complaint?

Would also love to know where this impact comes from. Existing internet switches, routers, etc… are on 24/7 anyway. The difference in power usage between idle and a 24/192 track can’t be much.  Disk storage? Disk access?

[UkPhil]

9 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

 

BTW: Where did that graphic come from? Is this on their website or did they just distribute this over social media; need to send the link to make that complaint?

 

They have this link on there web site https://www.mqa.co.uk/sustainable-tech

 

But the images was from an Instagram feed 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think I understand the math now. 

 

One person streams 100% new 24/192 files to avoid caching, to a super computer running on a diesel backup generator, and plays the tracks on Pass Labs pure Class A mono amps, etc...

 

The 5 flights in the comparison are done via either carrier pigeon or the MIT Daedalus (self powered aircraft).

 

The 9 car journeys were done via solar powered car and all the materials to make the car and service the car were excluded.

 

The 19 trees? All trees are the same. Whether Sequoiadendron giganteum or the 1-6 cm Salix herbacea (dwarf willow).

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is such a scorched Earth move from mQa. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, UkPhil said:

Planet Saving Quality.......

Nonsense. These kinds of calculations are almost always BS. 

And anyway, if you are really concerned about saving energy with music playback, then don't stream MQA at all. If you don't stream, then you are saving some energy.

[GoldenOne]

I'm genuinely surprised MQA is still operating.
Their latest accounts show a £4,340,856 loss for 2020, and £4,176,743 for 2019.

How can they keep on operating when things are looking like that with no clear route to an improvement?
Who on earth is still financially backing this?

[Axiom05]

Unfortunately, I think less people care about saving the planet than they do about mQa being a fraud. This marketing technique will not buy them any new fans.