MQA is Vaporware

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, jhwalker said:

It's not MY "comprehension skills" lacking  🙄

 

I was responding to the incorrect assertions made on this forum that I wrote that MQA was "lossless." I didn't and wouldn't.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[garrardguy60]

22 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I was responding to the incorrect assertions made on this forum that I wrote that MQA was "lossless." I didn't and wouldn't.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

At least Jim Austin had the good taste to pick one side and stick with it. 

[Rt66indierock]

14 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Now that's  ironic, Arch.

 

Thanks to a small number of loyal warriors, the Vaporware thread remains robust despite the fact that MQA is dead and gone. Reminds me a little of the Japanese soldier who continued to hide out in the Philippine jungle, engaging in guerrilla actions for 29 years until his former commander traveled from Japan to relieve him of duty. Chris, could you please award KO a medal for his service so he can move on? Poor guy—all his AS posts still relate to MQA. Wait until he has the time to discover the various other non-MQA aspects of this hobby that people enjoy. Like listening to music.

 

Andy

 

Andy,

Thanks to Chris we have a place to continue our quest. I was heavily criticized for wanting MQA Ltd liquidated and the IP in someone’s hands who wouldn’t use it. With a lot of help and Companies House database, MQA Ltd. will be liquidated. But Lenbrook purchased the IP and intends to use it. Why?

·         Lenbrook lost (confidential settlement) a patent infringement case against Sonos in 2020. They have to pay Sonos royalties for a license on all BluOS enabled devices they sell. They may believe they can use MQA Ltd.’s IP to get around Sonos patents and stop paying royalties.

·         NAD paid significant royalties and licensing fees to MQA Ltd. Now they don’t have to.

·         PSB has wireless headphones in the pipeline and would be hard to impossible to change course and use a different technology than SCL6.

To complete our quest, we have the following in our favor.

·         Tidal is a big drag on Block Inc.’s earnings. Tidal’s revenues have been flat since 2020. A death sentence in the technology sector. A good case can be made to kill it anytime Jack Dorsey is willing to listen.

·         MQA is now old technology and people like shiny new technology.

·         The high-end audio press does not have the status and influence to promote MQA to anyone except those on the wrong side of the audiophile bell curve.

·         Lenbrook has consistently overstated the market for high resolution audio. Clouding their judgement on the value of MQA Ltd.’s IP.

I hope everyone ignores you and continues to fight the adoption of MQA and SCL6.

Stephen

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

I was responding to the incorrect assertions made on this forum that I wrote that MQA was "lossless." I didn't and wouldn't.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Fair enough, let's not worry about the semantics or what you said exactly. We all understand that MQA doesn't mathematically reproduce the exact content that was fed into it. Whether it was changed to the point of audibility will depend on the content (ie. noise floor, presence of content >20kHz, etc.). I'd call this without question lossy. Feel free to disagree.

 

What's more important I think to some of us John, given your position as an audio journalist, is what you think about this "new world" you witnessed and "future of streaming" codec you talked about? You wrote about these ideas, even calling it the "WTF moment" given the quality you heard in 2014. I hope you can address this question openly given your name in the audiophile world and I think it's only fair out of respect for the audience since you're engaging here hopefully to achieve meaningful dialogue. I think the vast majority of us here have been as transparent as we can reasonably be within the rules of civil discourse (and maybe sometimes a little above and beyond 😉) about how we feel about MQA and why it is not good for all kinds of reasons.

 

Are you still impressed? Do you still think this is the "future" we should be asking for as music lovers? Is it possible that you and many in the audiophile media have been wrong?

 

The last time I asked you questions along these lines I think a couple of years ago, you ghosted us as I recall. I don't think there is shame in admitting that perhaps we made the wrong call and at some point need to retract previous opinions. I've certainly over the years put addendums in some of my writings when I realized I was in error.

 

[Archimago]

16 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Now that's  ironic, Arch.

 

Thanks to a small number of loyal warriors, the Vaporware thread remains robust despite the fact that MQA is dead and gone. Reminds me a little of the Japanese soldier who continued to hide out in the Philippine jungle, engaging in guerrilla actions for 29 years until his former commander traveled from Japan to relieve him of duty. Chris, could you please award KO a medal for his service so he can move on? Poor guy—all his AS posts still relate to MQA. Wait until he has the time to discover the various other non-MQA aspects of this hobby that people enjoy. Like listening to music.

 

Andy

 

Well Andy, nice to see that TAS hasn't said anything on the website thus far about the acquisition and whether this will strengthen MQA or whatever news item they want to propagate.

 

It's a forum, man! We joke around here... And I certainly took Chris' comment and my response as some light hearted banter given that I'm sure we both know this whole MQA business is literally a "tempest in a teapot" and we've got other things to do way more important than this. It's fun, it's a hobby, we're passionate hobbyists, and the end-game can be just as interesting as the opening moves.

 

Besides, the comment wasn't directed to you or necessarily even TAS, it's the news release, Stereophile article and responses there (like JA's take on what is or isn't "lossless/lossy"), and some folks like Fx Studio's statements we've been addressing, right?

 

I am glad however that you agree "MQA is dead and gone". Go with that, and may it be so.

[bambadoo]

6 hours ago, Indydan said:

That Peter Veth must have orgasmed in his pants, when he heard the announcement that Lenbrook had bought MQA...

 

Seems so. 

 

[Archimago]

LOL. I just saw that Peter Veth item and realized that TAS did in fact post on the acquisition news and linked to the inaccurate Robert Harley 2016 article the other day. Just that the Lenbrook news quickly fell off their front page! :-)

 

BTW: Interesting speculation by Veth about multichannel; when did he become a fan? I don't think they're that innovative 😄 - prove me wrong. I don't think there has been anything about multichannel in the MQA literature (other than Kal's article). Besides, the MQA codec doesn't have any special capabilities, nor would it really save storage space.

[ARQuint]

12 hours ago, firedog said:

Really out of line. What happened to guy preaching endlessly to us about "civility"?

 

Please don't ever come here and preach to us about civility again. You just lost all moral standing on the issue. 

 

 

Sorry, Firedog and KO. It was meant lightly. This thread has never been all that good when it comes to recognizing irony.

 

It's just that Keen has been so intense about a subject that really hasn't mattered to very many people—not even that many audiophiles—and is now kind of irrelevant. ("Tempest in a teapot" is spot-on, Archimago, and as Chris said in his intro at the infamous RMAF seminar: "We're not talking about killing puppies here," or something like that.) Do we need an "MQA Truth and Reconciliation Commission?" Happy to serve, if there is one.

 

One last thing, Keen.

I am a doctor.

Now what?

[Archimago]

13 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

One last thing, Keen.

I am a doctor.

Now what?

 

We know you're not that kind of doctor, eh, Andy? 😉

[ARQuint]

11 minutes ago, Archimago said:

We know you're not that kind of doctor, eh, Andy? 😉

True.

So that's what he was getting at...

 

[KeenObserver]

37 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

One last thing, Keen.

I am a doctor.

Now what?

 I'm aware.

Medice, cura te ipsum.

[ARQuint]

26 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I'm aware.

Medice, cura te ipsum.

 

Always the most economical approach. 😉

[RichardSF]

Something that struck me is that when MQA Ltd went into receivership in April, Stereophile and TAS went silent on the topic for months. No commentary about it, or even reporting it as audio news. However, with the Lenbrook acquisition both had it up on their websites just hours after the announcement.

[Archimago]

8 minutes ago, RichardSF said:

Something that struck me is that when MQA Ltd went into receivership in April, Stereophile and TAS went silent on the topic for months. No commentary about it, or even reporting it as audio news. However, with the Lenbrook acquisition both had it up on their websites just hours after the announcement.

 

Indeed more than a little "asymmetrical", shall we say? Perhaps one of the most obvious and concrete signs of bias. 😏

[Allan F]

21 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

I did not say MQA is "not lossy." What I wrote was that "While it is true that the bits in an MQA-encoded file are not the same as those in the original hi-rez file, this does not necessarily mean that the format is 'lossy' in the manner that MP3, AAC, etc are lossy."

 

The answer to the above is simply, "So what?" Does MQA retain all the musical content of the original recording? No, it does not. All the marketing claims of MQA, apart from reducing the size of the original file, are simply BS!

[Stereo]

44 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Indeed more than a little "asymmetrical", shall we say? Perhaps one of the most obvious and concrete signs of bias. 😏

And EGO!!!!

[John Dyson]

43 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Indeed more than a little "asymmetrical", shall we say? Perhaps one of the most obvious and concrete signs of bias. 😏

Most likely:   bias$$$...

Since there is a company to pay, then the advocacy increases.

Follow the money...

 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, RichardSF said:

Something that struck me is that when MQA Ltd went into receivership in April, Stereophile and TAS went silent on the topic for months. No commentary about it, or even reporting it as audio news.

 

Not on the magazine's website, no. But it was covered in the print magazine.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[firedog]

4 hours ago, bambadoo said:

 

Seems so. 

 

So Funny. More PV delusions of grandeur.

 

I think the best case scenario for PV is that MQA will only be available on Lenbrook equipment only. That will, by definition, make it a fairly meaningless product. But my guess is they are really planning on using the SCL6 IP, not so much MQA. 

 

It's pretty clear Tidal is dropping it. They aren't going to go back (if they survive) to it, probably b/c they realized they need to save the royalties they are paying. That also makes it basically irrelevant.

 

If there's no widely available legal source for it, who's going to care about it? What manufacturer will include it in new products? Anyone other than Lenbrook? Answer: no. 

Will record labels then keep producing it? Don't think so. There's no money for them in it. And  Lenbrook (unlike MQA) isn't going to give them free stock shares in the company as payment. 

 

I really don't see this as Lenbrook "saving" MQA.  But PV can keep deluding himself, as he's done all along. I hope he enjoys many years of listening to his illegal Russian downloads of MQA on his Lenbrook setup.

 

 

[Fx Studio]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

 

This is quite ironic. I've done nothing more than tell you how the MQA filters have been determined to work (with a logic analyzer applied to the internals of a DAC). Yet I'm the one who won't accept this information because I've already decided?

 

From what I and others are hearing your test is likely flawed and making assumptions - the old "it can't be this because of that", argument is very weak.

 

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

[AudioDoctor]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

The answer to the above is simply, "So what?" Does MQA retain all the musical content of the original recording? No, it does not. All the marketing claims of MQA, apart from reducing the size of the original file, are simply BS!

 

I think you quoted the wrong person.

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

From what I and others are hearing your test is likely flawed and making assumptions - the old "it can't be this because of that", argument is very weak.

 

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

You’re smoking some serious stuff. Please don’t operate heavy machinery for a while. 

[MikeyFresh]

33 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

From what I and others are hearing your test is likely flawed and making assumptions - the old "it can't be this because of that", argument is very weak.

 

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

 

@The Computer Audiophile aren't all of Fx's non-substantive replies in which he's carefully steered around any questions posed to him an example of outright trolling and nothing more?

 

@firedog and others have pointed out that Fx doesn't even seem to know what constitutes a real test (or not a real test), and his recent non-response to @Jud is yet another example of zero substance and all troll. That kind of sheer idiocy is what often provokes a less than polite response, and yet there has been nothing but tolerance and patience with him here, counter to the fake news lack of civility charge often bandied about by the trade press and other MQA-supporters when describing this forum.

 

I see why you've given Fx a long leash here, because he's more than hung himself and continues to put his foot in his mouth with every post (I won't call them responses because they aren't). Strange that those so uninformed don't keep their mouth shut for fear of exposing themselves as know-nothings.

[Fx Studio]

9 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

@The Computer Audiophile aren't all of Fx's non-substantive replies in which he's carefully steered around any questions posed to him an example of outright trolling and nothing more?

 

@firedog and others have pointed out that Fx doesn't even seem to know what constitutes a real test (or not a real test), and his recent non-response to @Jud is yet another example of zero substance and all troll. That kind of sheer idiocy is what often provokes a less than polite response, and yet there has been nothing but tolerance and patience with him here, counter to the fake news lack of civility charge often bandied about by the trade press and other MQA-supporters when describing this forum.

 

I see why you've given Fx a long leash here, because he's more than hung himself and continues to put his foot in his mouth with every post (I won't call them responses because they aren't). Strange that those so uninformed don't keep their mouth shut for fear of exposing themselves as know-nothings.

 

The response when expecting wild claims made here might actually have some substance to back them up...

[Archimago]

57 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

From what I and others are hearing your test is likely flawed and making assumptions - the old "it can't be this because of that", argument is very weak.

 

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

 

Alas, you're kinda new around here. There have been listening tests and write-ups and other testimonies as well as blinded work for awhile now since Tidal made MQA available in 2017.

 

I don't think there's much point to answer a comment like this in detail since so much has been done and tested already unless you point to us which documented test found MQA in any way sounding particularly good or even special first. Alas, your PA system / ribbon speakers video was not convincing.

 

Would love to see documented testing showing a "WTF moment" (to quote John Atkinson - who as you can see is still avoiding giving us an update on the "birth of a new world" impression) thanks to MQA.