MQA is Vaporware

[Ajax]

11 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have several things in my life that are grandfathered. One is my AT&T plan and the other are my 1985 Ping Eye 2 irons.

 

My all time favourite golf clubs. The way the hosel sat on the ground just felt right. 

 

Two items I really really loved, that I stupidly (no other word fits) sold, was my Linn Sondek LP12 turntable and my Ping Eye 2 irons.

 

I'm sure I had good reasons at the time but can't possible think of what they could possibly have been.

 

......... back to the evils of MQA

[Ajax]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Ajax, its never too late for the Ping Eye 2 irons. The set I'm using I bought this year on Ebay for around $100 2-W, S, L. The Dynamic Gold Shafts (new) cost just under $100 on Ebay. The grips were $55. They are Pure from nearby Mesa, AZ. It cost me a little over $19 a club to have them refinished (retumbled)  and assembled by a guy who built custom clubs for MacGregor in Georgia. He is on Ebay too.

 

Hi Indie, thanks for the follow up  information on sourcing the Ping Eye 2 clubs. Sounds like a great deal. Unfortunately my golf is not what it used to be (2 x total knee replacements) and my enthusiasm for the game has waned.

 

At my "prime" I played off 12 at NSW Golf Club, Botany Bay, Sydney, which IMO is Australia's premier golf course ... it is located on the ocean only 15km south of Sydney's CBD and is our "Pebble Beach". It was designed by the great Alister MacKenzie, of Augusta National and Cypress Point fame, and is a must visit for any golfer travelling from overseas. Greg Norman is a member and also our course architect. Notables I have seen out there include Arnold Palmer, Nick Faldo and President Clinton. Take a second and click on the link below, which provides a series of photos that will give you a feel for its unique beauty.

 

Golf Digest currently ranks the NSW Golf Club as the No.1 golf course outside the United States and the UK.

 

"It's one of the great golf courses I've seen, really a fun golf course. You could have some real times out here."                Arnold Palmer, 27 Nov, 2004

 

https://www.nswgolfclub.com.au/cms/

 

Back to MQA before Chris has a fit 

 

 

 

[Ajax]

19 hours ago, labjr said:

 

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

 

Very very funny - thanks for the laugh. It only took 238 pages but was worth the wait!!

[Ajax]

Hi All,

 

Below is an extract from Mark Waldrep of AIX regular email. Apologies if this has already been referred to in previous blogs (I had a quick look at the last few pages but couldn't see any previous reference). He has finally completed his book on Audio and advises the following:

 

The Book Is Done!

The original plan for the Music and Audio book was to survey music basics and reflect on high-end audio — write a book about the same length as other similar books at 400-500 pages. The final pages count can in just short of 900 pages and includes almost 300 illustrations. The printer tells me that each book weighs about 3.1 pounds (and that's without the included Blu-ray disc). I should be getting 6 palettes weighing 8000 pounds late this month and will promptly begin sending them out to a group of very anxious and patient supporters.

 

................

 

Interestingly, I received an email from Robert Stuart as I neared completion and I sent him a copy of the chapter on MQA, which is titled MQA...A Solution To What?. As a friend and contributor to the book, I assured him that I would let him review his interview and the chapter on MQA. He expressed some concerns after having seen a few pages posted in a Kickstarter update. I also asked him about the MQA conversions that have been done of my files and promised to me (almost 4 years ago now). I have not heard back from him about any changes or when I might be able to evaluate the MQA's AIX Records audio files. The chapter stands as written.

 

This does not bode well for Robert Stuart's reputation. On a personal note nothing pisses me off more than when someone undertakes to do something and then despite repeated requests does nothing, and worst still does not have the courtesy to supply an explanation or an apology.

 

When Miska and Mansr etc. began debunking MQA when it first came out I was actually annoyed at them for "raining on the parade" as it sounded like a great concept. I am now firmly in their camp.  This is bullshit.

[Ajax]

AND THE BEAT GOES ON - 

 

Wonderful endorsement of Archimago's analysis of MQA by Mark Waldrep, who obviously holds him (and Chris) in high regard. As a civil engineer in a past life and having had drummed into me as an engineering student many years ago to design and calculate in minute detail and then stand back and say to myself "does this look right, does this feel right"? I know exactly where Mark & Archimago are coming from ......

 

.... If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably it is a duck.

 

MQA: Archimago Adds a "Final" Nail to the Coffin!

Dr. AIX

Every interested audiophile, equipment manufacturer, audio engineer, and content supplier should carefully read "MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions" by Archimago, which was posted on the Computer Audiophile site back in March. I hold Archimago in the highest regard (and consider him a friend) but this article is a thorough, thoughtful, and critical analysis of the hoax that is MQA. I don't know why I didn't hear about it sooner — I don't spend very much time reading CA — but kudos to Chris and Archimago for a terrific piece.

Please take the time to read the entire article — it is long but well written and painstakingly supported with illustrations, annotations, and footnotes (I was even mentioned in one of them). The first section examines the "need" for a new format — especially a lossy one that costs everyone in the supply chain and doesn't deliver on its promises. The 50 page chapter in my book Music and Audio: A User Guide To Better Sound on MQA is called, "MQA: A Solution To What?" because the claimed ability to deliver high-resolution audio through a narrow CD-sized pipe doesn't provide any audible benefit for the vast majority of music consumers. If you've read some of the articles on this website or the chapter in the book, you already know that wrapping ultrasonic frequencies (20-40 kHz) beneath the audio band sounds quite reasonable but only if the original masters have meaningful amounts of ultrasonic content — they don't. So why bother developing a complex "origami" folding scheme when the only partials being folded are noise, hiss, recording bias, and other uncorrelated signals. If you don't start with a bona fide high-resolution recording, then MQA is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. And virtually all commercial releases regardless of period are standard resolution.

Archimago confronts and dismisses every argument made by the inventors of MQA with careful technical and scientific rigor. He destroys the sycophant mainstream audiophile authors that have described this highly flawed scheme as "the most significant audio technology of my lifetime" or "MQA's ability to deliver better than high-res quality sound" with an objective sensibility and dispassionate thoroughness. I would challenge any of these authors to refute the supported statements in Archimago's article. They may push back with their go to, tried and true, escape hatch rationale, "it just sounds better". But wouldn't you think that professional journalists would want to defend what they hear with technical and scientific facts? Apparently not.

I did find the hundreds of comments on the article in support of the article a very promising sign. The investors behind the MQA quest for world domination are certainly not going to like this high profile article. Andrew Quint of TAS opened his editorial on MQA with "The codec known as MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) is clearly in its ascendancy." As audiophiles, let's hope he's wrong. The world doesn't need another lossy, DRM restricted, codec that pushes open source, free, and better formats aside. The major labels love MQA because they'll reap additional ± and undeserved — profits from long tail catalog and MQA-equipped device makers will prompt unknowing music enthusiasts to spend stupid money on something they don't really need.

The best thing that audiophiles around the world can do is let the major labels and everyone else the has bought into the MQA strategy know that we're on to them. We should boycott any and all companies that want to force us into their closed world view. Read the article, share it with everyone you know, write letters to the editors, and go to social media and like every comment that resists the MQA message. Collectively we have the power. If no one buys into their nonsense, they will be forced to back off. Then we can get back to making better sounding records!  

[Ajax]

More from Mark Waldrep who is currently attending the Munich Audio show where he obviously bumped into Chris. IMO his last paragraph below is where we are now at with MQA.

 

Dr. AIX

..........  I had the opportunity to speak with a few familiar faces. Andreas Koch of Playback Designs was just around the corner demonstrating his new components — a server, DAC, and streamer. Juan Perez of Digibit (they make a terrific server called ARIA) came by in the afternoon. Chris Connaker of Computer Audiophile and his brother wondered by too.

 

I hadn't chatted with him in a while but congratulated him on publishing the Archimago article on MQA. He assured me that he sent the piece to Robert Stuart prior to publication but was informed that the company didn't wish to respond. Apparently, the previous Q&A that Chris had published was sufficient in their mind to "refute" the observations made in the new piece. It didn't. I'm sure that MQA is hoping that the critical analysis of their lossy codec will pass without adversely affecting their business model. I'm not so sure. It's important for our community to make sure everyone reads the article.

It's true that some of the strongest advocates in the audiophile press still cling to their "I just like the sound" subjective positions but I've noticed even some of them have recently pulled back. Changing a position from MQA is the "single biggest development in the history of audio" to "it gives musicians control of their music" or "it's at least better than MP3" is substantial.

 

However, I've heard from a large number of companies and individuals — that wish to remain anonymous — that agree MQA is a bad thing for the industry but they fear the "experts" in the audiophile press will ignore their products. Makers of DACs, servers, and other high end products depend on positive press reviews to bring attention to their products, expand their distribution network, and ultimately sell more units. Having an MQA advocate slam their latest DAC as lacking because they didn't pay the hefty MQA license fee and incorporate the codec would be bad for business — even though ignoring MQA is the right thing to do.

It's time for those that initially hyped MQA to take another look, read the technical and scientific analysis and back off their unreasoned support. MQA is NOT needed, doesn't deliver fidelity improvements, and actually takes the music distribution business backwards.