MQA is Vaporware

[labjr]

On 10/27/2017 at 1:20 PM, mansr said:

ROTFL. Show me one, just one, "technical" explanation from Shunyata that is even scientifically meaningful, never mind accurate.

 

Try listening to Ted Denney of Synergistic Research sometime. I demoed some cables about 20 years ago and spoke with him on the phone. I swear he was making up  some Feng Shui voodoo  crap while he was telling it to me.

[labjr]

On 10/26/2017 at 6:36 AM, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Rick,

 

Prezactly. For more info on this, please refer to:

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/88367.html

 

Wow! Been away for while and hadn't seen this thread. Glad to read an opinion like this from a manufacturer.

[labjr]

7 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Great question! With TAS we are almost certain it was pure bribery. With Stereophile it is becoming clearer and clearer that JA considers Bob Stuart to be one of his "heroes", so when given a deliberately deceptive demo fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

But with Darko I don't know. I've pushed back on him many times via private e-mail correspondence. It is likely one of the above (or a combination). but I don't know which.

 

Yeah,  Darko suddenly flipped one day like someone got to him. Maybe he took an immunity deal.  I don't read his blog anymore for various reasons. I noticed he was censoring everything and deleting parts of my posts. I'm Done.

[labjr]

31 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Interesting that he would censor your posts. I've no idea what they were about. But it is equally interesting that any time there was any mention of MQA, (paid?) fanboy Peter Veth would make dozens of comments on the article, which Darko had no problem publishing.

 

Which of your viewpoints was Darko trying to suppress?

 

It's probably been a year since I've been on the site. But most of my posts were similar to stuff I post here. He would delete sarcasm, argumentative language and anything that seemed remotely negative. Looked to me like he was trying to fine tune every little thing so it looked pretty for his advertisers. 

 

 

 

Edit: As it was, it was hard to have a conversation because it took sometimes an entire day for him to moderate posts. 

[labjr]

27 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Bob Ludwig is being compensated. He was "for" every format..DSD, Multi Channel, 24 bit PCM,, the Plangent Process, and even making promo videos for "Mastered for iTunes". He will be "for" what ever brings in more income.

He goes which way the wind blows. He sold all his vinyl mastering gear in the 2000s then bought it all right back

for the "vinyl resurgence".

 

 

You beat me to it. Didn't Bob Ludwig say he couldn't tell the difference between the Rolling Stones master tapes and DSD? If DSD is so transparent, why do we need anything else?

 

The big publications are the same way. Whatever pays the biils. If it's passable they'll endorse it. 

[labjr]

2 hours ago, beetlemania said:

 

Because MQA is BETTER than the master tapes?

DSD128 & DSD256 is better than DSD. However, I wonder if analog source material would sound better than it does on DSD64? 

 

Most of what I listen to comes from analog source tapes.

 

I wonder if Bob Ludwig thinks analog tape transfers sound better on MQA than DSD?

[labjr]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Bob Ludwig’s DSD masters of the Stones on ABKCO sound fantastic. If you find better sounding versions, let us know. 

 

Agreed. sounds pretty darn good.

[labjr]

Unless we're buying a bit perfect copy of  the master from a digital recording, I'm sure we're not hearing sound of the master .

 

Analog systems have generational loss. Analog transferred to digital is gonna have loss. But I'm never going get to hear the master tape. unless one of you mastering engineers invites us into your studio.

 

Only one sample rate of files should be sold. And they should be well engineered from the best source available sources. There's a lot of crap being sold over and over again.

 

 

[labjr]

In this article, Spencer Chrislu of MQA contradicts himself:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/spencer-chrislu-master-quality-authenticated

 

"It's important, though, to protect the interests of studios. If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based. "

 

Followed by:

 

"So MQA comes along, and can take that tape from the archive, make it sound better than ever, "
 

 

 

 

[labjr]

I don't quite understand what Bob Ludwig did with the Stones SACD re-mastering. If he received digital files that were already converted to DSD. Did he convert to analog and back to digital?

 

When he re-mastered Queen for SACD did he work with the analog tapes?

[labjr]

3 hours ago, Miska said:

 

One needs to attempt very very hard to get any MQA files in first place, apart from couple of demo tracks...

 

I'm still curiously waiting where can I download/buy MQA encoder so I could create some files of my own...  No problem getting MP3 or AAC encoder, or something else along those lines.

 

You probably need to buy an MQA toll pass for $150,000 which doesn't include any royalties, and sign an NDA for information which will never be disclosed to you!

[labjr]

15 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I basically agree with this, but I think it unpacks a little more.  Ultimately, the record companies, not the artists, are The Source (apologies to LRH ), so MQA is really saying "True To The Record Companies".  When viewed through this lens, MQA's story isn't quite so disingenuous.  "Master Quality" is what the record companies want you to hear, without regard for the artists' wishes.  As Spencer Chrislu from MQA has stated, "naked" high resolution PCM files are the record companies' crown jewels and should not be directly accessible by consumers.

What Spencer Chrislu says is nothing but marketing BS. He also states that MQA improves the sound. So why would we need the "crown jewels" if MQA is better?

[labjr]

15 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

Because at some point we may not have a choice if MQA becomes the only delivery method. Certainly, MQA survival probably depends on that.

[labjr]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

 

I'm not sure either. But do you think MQA would like to be the only game in town? I do. And I think they're trying everything to make that happen. I'm sure labels would love to distribute one format only. If the whole distribution model changes before everyone realizes it's not as good as they say it is, then they may no go back to the old system because audiophile market isn't that large. To me, this isn't one of those things where you say "Give it a chance, you may like it" Personally, I don't care if it is better. There's plenty of other brilliant digital designers that aren't trying to corner the market. 

[labjr]

2 minutes ago, synn said:

Unless MQA enabled devices become the majority of the playback devices out there, I don’t foresee a situation where labels stop releasing normal FLAC files. 

 

which platform sells the most music currently? I believe it’s iTunes. And there are no indications that Apple wants to go anywhere near MQA. IF they do, THEN there’s a good chance that MQA becomes the norm. The chances of which are very slim indeed.

 

Part of their marketing spiel is that  MQA sounds better even undecoded. Why do you think that is?  

[labjr]

2 minutes ago, synn said:

 Sure, but it’s not really equating to market traction.

 

i had mentioned in a previous post how MQA is still a no name over here in Germany.

They're basically saying, one format is good enough for everyone.

[labjr]

13 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

If MQA is the only hirez format available then I can see some real issues.

 

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.  I was also planning to talk to Charlie Hansen about his concerns but I learned today that very sadly he passed away yesterday.

 

Wow! That's tough news.  I loved reading his posts. Charlie brilliantly dissected MQA. What a great mind. He will be missed.   

[labjr]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

If left out, a cake goes hard whereas a biscuit goes soft.

 

I'm getting to the age where I would describe myself more as a biscuit.

[labjr]

At least Fremer writes a good review. Good entertainment value.  He's good at selling it up. Although I can't afford anything he reviews. 

 

Plaskin reviews on Audiostream were  total joke. Synergistic Research stuff is laughable. I had a phone conversation with Ted Denney about 25 years ago. It was like speaking to the head of the Scientology Church. I swear he was making stuff up as he spoke. 

[labjr]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

I think @Peter Markus is Peter Veth. The account was created on the same day Peter Veth was banned, and I'm already seeing similarities in writing style. @The Computer Audiophile, could you look into this?

Wow you beat me to it!

[labjr]

9 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I have seen a few posts on other forums that in Stereophile's new issue, they "As We See It" opening column may be the first

hedge against MQA they have published in almost 4 years, written by Jon Iverson.

 

Anyone with the issue, feel free to corroborate.

 

I haven't received the April issue yet. However JA said they would go into "deblurring" without the lossy compression which many have asked about. I figured there would be an excuse as to why it's not technically possible or even needed. Maybe I'm wrong.

[labjr]

59 minutes ago, adamdea said:

I've read Iverson's article. The conclusion is that becasue we can't separate the compression side of MQA from the deblurring there no ability to tell whether it is wirth it. Hence Iverson considers that MQA is not in the long-term interests of audiophiles. He hopes it's not too late.

Exactly. They're forcing you to take the whole package because nobody would want to pay licensing for just some new filtering.

[labjr]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

Can someone post a link to the Iverson article please? I can’t seem to find it.

As far as I know, it's in the April issue that's in the mail and not been received by everyone yet. I think at some point it will be on the site on in "As We See it" column 

[labjr]

I received my copy of the April issue of Stereophile yesterday and read the Jon Iverson opinion this morning. I wonder if writers are starting to be haunted by the ghost of Charley Hansen.

 

 

[labjr]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

...check the letters section....

 

I read the Letters today. Looks like they're getting reamed by everyone. I guess they had it coming. But what were they thinking in the first place?  Reminds me of that District Attorney trying to prosecute the Duke lacrosse team. Didn't want to hear the truth.