MQA is Vaporware

[Brahan Seer]

13 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

When people in the "brands" tell lies, market dishonestly, and try to stop the truth from coming out, they deserve all the "unsavoury" beatdowns they get.

Agree to disagree. It's still too harsh.

[botrytis]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Good example.

 

I suspect that Brahan Seer (BS) may actually be Bob Stuart (BS) in disguise...

 

He certainly seems a bit more intelligent than the other shills we've had come along.

 

A shill is a shil, smart or not.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Brahan Seer said:

Agree to disagree. It's still too harsh.

 

No. When the audio press out and out lies, what do people expect audiophiles to do? I expect them to vote with their wallets, like other consumers.

[Brahan Seer]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Good example.

 

I suspect that Brahan Seer (BS) may actually be Bob Stuart (BS) in disguise...

 

He certainly seems a bit more intelligent than the other shills we've had come along.

Darn, you got me*. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

* Not.

[Pierre LeMonf]

5 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Agree to disagree. It's still too harsh.

Classic troll/shill passive-agressive posting techniques.

[The Computer Audiophile]

42 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

But, who here boycotts these brands for being/trying to be successful?

 

Absolutely nobody boycotts any brand for being/trying to be successful. People boycott because the function of the business or what the business promotes, goes against their interests. 

 

Gay rights supporters have traditionally boycotted Chick-fil-A. Not because the company is successful, rather because of its support for causes that go against their interests. 

[Brahan Seer]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Absolutely nobody boycotts any brand for being/trying to be successful. People boycott because the function of the business or what the business promotes, goes against their interests. 

 

Gay rights supporters have traditionally boycotted Chick-fil-A. Not because the company is successful, rather because of its support for causes that go against their interests. 

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

[botrytis]

15 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

 

They out and out lied. First, they said it was lossless, then better than lossless. How can it be better than lossless? The issue is every part of the chain from recording to final product, m-QAnon get paid, for what? A process that has been superseded 20 yrs ago by a free algorithm?

[JoeWhip]

It is not a fair ish point, but right on point. MQA wants to deny consumers choice. That is shown with Tidal removing non MQA titles where MQA titles are available. The fact that you think this is OK speaks volumes to me.

[JoeWhip]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Purposely being obtuse?

Me being obtuse? Never. I was being sly, stating the obvious without being obvious. My spidey sense always tingles when we get low count posters filling up this thread with pro MQA stuff. The fact that he is from the UK is a bonus.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Me being obtuse? Never. I was being sly, stating the obvious without being obvious. My spidey sense always tingles when we get low count posters filling up this thread with pro MQA stuff. The fact that he is from the UK is a bonus.

Not you, him!

 

:~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

 

Music is very important to many members of this community. If mQa succeeds in replacing all music with a single deliverable, we will pay more for less and have worse quality than the original. That's an issue worth fighting for, for many music lovers. 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

And there is partaking in/enabling the spreading of unsavoury chat about a brand

What about the over-savory waxing poetic bullshit about a brand that's exactly what was practiced here and elsewhere ad nauseam by the now infamous LS, and various other likely paid influencers including HB, and PV on behalf of MQA? 

 

Then there is the the trade press, and their orgasmic reaction to all things MQA, literally a birthing of new worlds by their take. Shall we agree there is sufficient need to counter balance against that too, or are you more in agreement that there is a revolution in digital audio called MQA that is the real "story"?

 

Causal observer here to provide balance, or spirited BS artist furthering that cause?

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

 

How do you measure vitriol and how do you determine what "levels" are "merited"?

[Skirmash]

35 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

 

I would normally sit on the sidelines and let far more eloquent people than me represent my point of view - but you are being so blatantly obtuse - I could not resist.

 

MQA's clear goal is to become the ubiquitous streaming method. Their licensing approach adds cost throughout the music recording, distribution and reproduction processes. If it was simply a matter of adding another choice, that would be fine. But that isn't what has factually happened. The major service pushing MQA has reduced choice - not increased it. It is not refutable. It is fact. I have no idea why it is convenient for you to ignore this.

 

Now, I would not care for the loss of choice if MQA was actually technically sound. I don't recall much choice when we moved to CD as the preferred digital distribution medium. But then, it demonstrably and objectively performed better than the Compact Cassettes and Vinyl I had been listening to.

 

The elephant in the room that you are conveniently ignoring - and which you are hiding from in all your pseudo-polite nonsense - is that MQA has been technically debunked. When it's technical merits (or lack there of) have been exposed in public forums, the MQA approach is to shoot the messenger and hide behind arguments of authority rather than address the issues directly.

 

It is in MQA' s own self interest to compellingly refute what has been said about it. It hits them in the pocket not to! Why have they not addressed the technical concerns? Simple - they cannot. They have been exposed! None of the grand-standing by the bullies at RMAF 2018 will change that. There was nothing of substance in the repost to GoldenSound's video either. It was noise and obfuscation - much like MQA itself.

 

I know this thread is internet legend - but it is still surprising to me that people with your approach continue to join the thread. Your MO is very obvious. You speak quietly in an attempt to paint yourself as the mild voice of reason among people who are unfairly circling around MQA like a pack of rabid wolves. However, you speaking quietly cannot draw attention away from the crock of marketing BS and lies that is MQA.

 

Now, please bring something substantive to the table - most of your audience loathe the spurious noise.

[KeenObserver]

My God, the cycle of BS is starting all over again.

There is nothing that MQA CLAIMS to do that cannot be done with open source programs.

You can compress your files with FLAC. You can use whatever algorithm you want. You can use whatever music shaping software you want to tune the music to your wishes, all without having to pay MQA for the right to do so.

MQA has been pushing for years. and has dumped millions into promoting and sustaining MQA.  That would not be happening unless they expected to make HUGE profits.  Those HUGE profits would be paid for by the music consumer. To reap the huge profits MQA would need to be the sole method for distributing music. That is MQA's business plan.

One should look at how the main financial backer of MQA made their billions and determine for themselves if they are trying to do the same to the music consumer.

The bottom line is: would the music consumer be better off with MQA?

If you are happy paying more for corrupted music, then you should embrace MQA.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

Ultimately, it is Tidal's choice. And 'choice' is what this three seems to be all about. I am pretty sure that MQA isn't telling Block, Inc. what to do!

 

Well Brahan Seer you telegraphed your intentions with your first post on AS. “Ionic Originals is Vaporware Ionic Originals was launched on April 2022. It is now May 11, 2022, so let’s see where Ionic Originals is at today.”

 

I find the conversation here calm and rational. The thread meanders a bit but when someone like you tries to add balance well it is fish on.

 

I must ask why now? There is nothing you can do to change anything about MQA’s revenues or market share.

[KeenObserver]

4 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

I like the way Masters sound, yes. I also find some of the attitudes in this forum somewhat extreme. Just adding a bit of balance. :-)

 

If you want to see extreme attitudes, watch the MQA behavior at RMAF 2018. MQA's ethical standards were on display.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

 

It's a long thread, I wonder if you've read very much of it, and if so what exact vitriol you refer to?

 

Fair assessment by means of testing and measurement, as well as an acknowledgment of the systemic threats MQA represents to both consumers, and the music production industry on various levels should this scheme survive do not constitute "vitriol".

[danadam]

On 9/6/2022 at 10:02 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just happened to check this out a few minutes ago and couldn't believe how bad it is. This is Tracy Chapman Talkin' Bout A Revolution. 

 

I first played the mQa version, the only version available from Tidal, then the CD version that's available from all other streaming services and the actual CD. Rather than Talkin' Bout A Revolution, it should be called Talkin' Bout Juicing the Volume!

 

I just hit record with my iPhone, sitting in my listening chair. Nothing special. The attached audio goes along with this image. The first music is the mQa, followed by CD.

So... those other services, were they more like Tidal or more like the CD?

 

4 hours ago, skraggy said:

However, this is not exclusive to Tidal: I just compared my own CD, Tidal and Qobuz and both streaming versions sound the same to me, but they are undeniably much louder than the CD. I don't have any measuring gear other than my phone, but I'd say Qobuz and Tidal are approx. 7-8 dB louder.

Yes, exactly:

DR,  Sample peak,          RMS,    Loudness,     LRA
 9,   -0.05 dBFS,  -13.84 dBFS,  -10.8 LUFS,  6.6 LU - qobuz/01-01-Tracy_Chapman-Talkin_Bout_a_Revolution-LLS.flac
14,   -0.80 dBFS,  -20.00 dBFS,  -16.9 LUFS, 10.3 LU - cd/01. Talkin’ Bout a Revolution.flac

but shush 🤫, I'm sure it's still mqa's fault 🙂.

[skraggy]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

To reap the huge profits MQA would need to be the sole method for distributing music.

 

I'd be very interested to hear the opinion of people like Chris and others who are closer to the industry, but I just don't see that happen.

 

None of the big players like Spotify will ever give up a share of their earnings to MQA if they don't think it would actually increase their profits.

 

The record companies maybe would like to force MQA on the streaming sites, but what's their leverage? I can't imagine a scenario where they would give up the money from Spotify or Apple to push MQA.

 

And most of the users never don't give a damn which format their streaming service uses.

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, skraggy said:

The record companies maybe would like to force MQA on the streaming sites, but what's their leverage?

They have all the leverage. The own Kind of Blue. The streaming services need Kind of Blue. Spotify can’t create Sort of Blue and keep customers. If labels say you get mQa or nothing, streaming services will have to accept that. 

 

15 minutes ago, skraggy said:

And most of the users never don't give a damn which format their streaming service uses.

Which is one reason to force it upon them. It’s an inferior product, but most people don’t care. This way the Crown Jewels stay in the vault, everyone in the business wets their beak via the mQa tax, and life is good for everyone except the consumers who care. 
 

 

[AudioDoctor]

10 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

But, who here boycotts these brands for being/trying to be successful?

 

You can't possibly be serious with this? basically you are calling the scummiest of scummy actions a company can take that would lead to someone boycotting it as "trying to be successful"

 

Every day I wake up expecting that I can't possibly be more shocked/appalled than I already have been by some random persons absolutely terrible hot take, but Jesus... I don't even know where to start with this.

[Jud]

15 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

Essentially, down to its commercial success BrewDog has removed some choice. It no doubt takes positions in supermarkets that would otherwise be filled by other brands. But that's the nature of a free market, non? What are your examples of MQA removing other formats and removing choice? (Again, genuine, non-loaded question.)

 

Long thread, so I just scanned, and someone else may have answered this previously.  Currently, MQA is the only "hi-res" format available for at least many titles (all?) on Tidal, one of the few streaming services to offer what is supposed to be CD or greater resolution and allow purchase of what are supposed to be CD or greater resolution downloads.  (I know of 3 others, but 2 of these specialize in classical.) Thus in what is already a very small niche market, one of only two companies to offer streaming and purchase of CD or greater resolution music other than classical is restricting at least some, possibly all, of its product to the MQA format.

 

I believe that answers your question.

[Jud]

14 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

Anyway, to say that the original can't be improved seems a defeatist approach

 

Ah, if only it were improved.  Don't know how much of the thread you've read, but due to the lossy encryption and type of digital filtering used by MQA, the analog result must technically be less similar to the analog input than obtained via ordinary CD-or-greater resolution non-proprietary digital reproduction.  It is also a "one trick pony," i.e., it alters the sound the same way every time.

 

Of course everyone's free to do whatever DSP they like to the original.  But for the vast majority of audiophiles, getting closer to the original is the reason for DSP.  Even for those who want to alter the original sound, it does seem like a better proposition for the consumer for this to be a choice rather than a fait accompli.