MQA is Vaporware

[mfsoa]

Oh boy have you guys (anti-MQA) tossed a softball to MQA/Stereophile/TAS that they surely can't resist taking a swing at...

 

Imagine the boost to MQA's credibility - Imagine how important it would be for SPhile and TAS to be vindicated as the technical and industry leaders who boldly and accurately proclaimed the second coming of sliced bread - Imagine how embarrassed all the nattering nabobs of MQA negativity would be - Imagine (if this is anyone's desire) the (small) harm to this website and the credibility of it's founder. Just imagine how the MQA critics would be silenced once and for all, and how it would clear the path for broad acceptance of this wonderful new standard...

 

All MQA/SPhile/TAS has to do is simply answer the few technical questions posed here, with verifiable results.

 

Seems pretty straightforward to me, given the awesome power of MQA to do these incredible things to sound quality that have eluded all other digital designers to date.

 

Or, maybe not...

 

The silence is deafening.

 

 

(BTW, my brother owns a brick 'n mortar stereo shop. Yep, right next to the buggy whip factory. Very few customers know about MQA but there are definitely some who have bought into the "Without MQA this device will be obsolete in a year..." thing. Why would trade magazines be pushing to make all current digital audio hardware obsolete? Hmmm...)

 

[mfsoa]

One meaningless MQA data point:  My nephew never went to college but is one those who mastered the computer thing in his bedroom. He has worked for a few companies and was recruited by Apple and now works there on digital audio stuff. He just started recently so I don't know what he is working on.

 

But when he was hired I did ask him what his take on MQA was.  His answer - "Never heard of it"

 

 

[mfsoa]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

We mention MQA when it's an available feature in a DAC and mostly, that's it.

So if I understand your point-

 

A company rolls out a technology with the intent of forcing music lovers across the globe to pay them money each time they listen to music, when that company's product is of a lower quality than what the consumer knows to exist and wants to purchase.

 

And the leading audiophile publication in the world feels that this does not require any analysis, any investigation? No, we just simply mention when it is available on a product. If this is the extent of information that TAS is able to provide to a reader then fine, I can anticipate that there will be not much need to open the pages.

 

New top of the line amp!! OMG!!  It takes in a signal and puts out a louder one!!  Has speaker connection terminals!

State of the art turntable -  Record goes around and then stops when you turn it off.

 

You seem to say that it is a good thing that TAS simply lists features without consideration of their merit. I hope for much more. 

 

If Car and Driver ignored the driving performance and societal impact of electric cars and self-driving technology and simply reported if a car contained them or not, I would consider it poor journalism.

 

   

[mfsoa]

BS made a wine analogy a few pages ago which got me thinking what the true wine analogy would be if we were to put it in MQA terms-

 

- Meridian has developed a chemical treatment which is claimed to improve the storage and transportation of wine - something about deblurring the taste caused by the storage and transport process, but no info is released about the chemical they use or the effects it has. Despite no one in the world ever complaining of their wine being blurry of having any issues with storage or transport.

- To make this happen, 1% of this chemical will be added per volume of wine, costs to be transferred to consumers. 

- In order to use this process, vineyards must agree to not sell the unadulterated product - better to keep these Crown Jewels so that they can be sold at higher prices to wealthier customers a few years later. 

- Surely, some consumers love the taste of this adulterated product and wonder why ANYONE would ever want to drink that old style wine that only those snobby "purists" want to drink. But many purists think it tastes like crap and would like to have a choice.

- Since this adulteration is good for everyone (tastes better, easier to transport), the push is on for ALL vineyards in the world to use this process. Nevermind that a third party has wiggled their way in to the process so that they get paid each time you drink wine. Surely this a GOOD THING!!!  What could go wrong? How dare you seek to drink "real" wine - This is the future, man, get on board.

- Of course you could have always added whatever you wanted to your wine, go for it if you want. There are already dozens of wine deblurring chemicals out there to try for free. But maybe I don't want to add anything - oops it's already there, you have no choice but to drink the wine (kool aid) that Meridian says you should drink.

 

I'm sure I missed lots of things but it got me thinking - What other product would society allow to have adulterated, without their control, while greatly limiting their choice while offering no benefit to the consumer that they could not achieve for themselves, while enriching the company that foisted this scheme on us?

 

It's unimaginable (oops, the last administration happened so maybe not so much anymore) that such a scheme would ever be accepted.

 

Sorry if this makes no sense - it's been in my head lately...

[mfsoa]

Clearly, Sony didn't want the board of directors to know the vast resources that it took to research the ADC used for each track on each song on each album, and then to contact each and every one of these musicians to confirm that the final MQA result is truly "exactly as the artist intended"

 

[mfsoa]

Since MQA invariably improves the sound of even the highest resolution masters (cough), has TAS or Stereophile pushed for all recording studios to convert to pure MQA processing and storage?

 

No?

 

Why not?

 

Do they not want the very best in sound quality for their readers?

 

Why the hell would anyone use anything else? 

 

Do all of their music reviews lament the fact if the data was not in MQA and describe the extent of SQ loss experienced by sticking to a DXD source?

 

NO?

 

Why not?

 

Do all of their reviewers add an MQA processing step into their reference systems, otherwise how can equipment be properly evaluated?

 

No?

 

Why not?

 

Hmmm, why wouldn't these magazines insist that their reviewers use the highest quality source possible, which according to them is MQA? Intellectually disingenuous of them to promote MQA yet not push for it's full adoption.

 

 

 

[mfsoa]

Well said - Any review that does not let me know how much SQ I am losing by not having MQA decoding is not in keeping with their editorial stance.

 

Kinda like publicly castigating masks and vaccines to make $$$ while requiring employees to submit vaccination records and wear masks. What kind of organization would do something like that? 

 

 

[mfsoa]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

This allowed perfect time-domain behavior throughout the recording-reproduction chain, just as is claimed for MQA

Did MQA achieve this, or are they lying? No one is a better position to tell us than you.  Why won't you tell us?

[mfsoa]

JA, thank you for the reply, and I must compliment you for engaging with this community when we are often somewhat rude and abrasive. My apologies if I have come off this way. You have a thick skin and/or justifiable confidence in your knowledge. Your contribution is truly appreciated. The reason we look to you is BECAUSE you are so well positioned to shed light on this issue, and convey information to a large number of readers. But man, are we frustrated with this MQA deal.

 

We have to wonder, 7 years after the introduction of MQA, why their claims remain completely unverified.

That in itself is disqualifying for the format and sheds a very poor light on the audiophile press whom we believed were working in the best interests of the audiophile community.

 

An article on MQAs refusal to allow their technology to be evaluated, would provide such a service to your readers.  You will be lauded for your openness and honesty.

 

It is clear (in my little mind) that there is a right side of history here and a wrong side. I encourage Stereophile to do the right thing. You have a choice.

 

No benefit to consumer. Increase consumer cost. What is the audio press' response to this?

 

 

[mfsoa]

When someone tells me something that seems absolutely impossible while providing no supporting evidence, my reaction is to question what I am told. Maybe that's just the analytical chemist in me...

 

Yet the Stereophile stance is that until such claims are proven to be false, they stand as-is.

Therefore as MQA does not allow their claims to be proven false, they are by definition accepted as fact. Wow that's some serious hard-hittin' journalism there.

 

There is a pink elephant behind my couch. I have no pictures, only my word. Does anyone really believe there is a pink elephant behind my couch?

 

Is Stereophile convinced of the elegance of the claims made by MQA or the elegance of the reality?

 

 

[mfsoa]

Distrokid doesn't even mention MQA. You'd think that if there was an MQA conversion involved that they would mention it. Is MQA sufficiently toxic now that you can't mention it even if you are selling it?

 

 

[mfsoa]

TAS has no problem getting 24/384 MQA. What's wrong with you guys?! 😉

[mfsoa]

It must be difficult getting agreement from all members of a symphony orchestra that the MQA version is truly how they wanted their music published.

Or is this Beethoven's responsibility?

 

Seriously, how many artists have come out and publicly stated "There are two versions of my art. One is superior (let's say DXD master), and one is inferior. It is my wish that the public only receive the inferior version"

 

 

[mfsoa]

I like minimum phase filters. I was disappointed that the Rotel Michi did not allow selection of filter types, so I needed to confirm that the one chosen was not a linear phase.

 

When comparing MQA vs. non-MQA (if using a linear phase filter), the difference should be at least as great as simply switching between phases on a DAC, I'd guess, which is clearly audible.

 

Seems there should be a pretty clear diff between linear phase non-MQA and MQA given the same master

[mfsoa]

In my job as an analytical chemist, if I were to promote a new technology to my company that never had a chance of succeeding and was subsequently found out to be scam from the beginning, while investing no time to understand whether this tech was real or not, I'd be out on the street. 

 

Any chance that any of the writers who brought such embarrassment to their publications, with their lack of journalistic integrity and technical chops, will be treated like to rest of us?