MQA is Vaporware

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Hrm - very disappointing. This should have the thing that united  ASR and AS.  Argument should be  - hey,  both sides of the audiophile thought discussion agree here, mQa is bad news  - even if for different reasons. Doesn't matter.

 

I do have a related question - do moderators have a duty to be impartial?  Well, I understand that the owner of the forum has the right to regulate content she/he wants on the forum - BUT, talking in general, if someone becomes a moderator, is that a reasonable expectation? I guess I kind of answered my question... so it may be dumb in essence... yet... feels wrong what they did...

 

v

 

 

Indeed.  Amir at Audio Science review has always taken a defensive stance towards MQA which contradicts any logical, or indeed scientific analysis of the product.  Amirs evident bias doesnt make much sense unless.......................

 

No, moderators at ASR are not impartial, they are appointed by and take direct instruction on policy from Amir.  People who disagree with Amir are now banned and threads locked.  Thats fine its Amirs playground, but to call the site "scientific" is entirely disingenuous and misleading.  It should be renamed "AAR - Amirs Audio Review"

[March Audio]

9 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

 

 

Thanks for posting this, it further demonstrates MQA trying to obfuscate the truth about the product. I will be linking to it and the previous video on our own website.

[March Audio]

On 5/25/2021 at 11:46 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I would've loved to hear facts from them. I had no agenda either way. I also wanted to LOVE mQa. If the company could've given me some facts and backed up its claims, I would still be arguing for the implementation of mQa by every company and record label. I love music. I love good sounding music. I love technology than can bring the two together. Heck, I started a website based on this entire concept! mQa would've been great for business if it was real.

 

 

 

 

 

100%

 

Q is trying to rewrite history and @John_Atkinson is upvoting his posts. 

 

 

 

 

Hi Q, There is no need for a defense. This is all about bringing information to light. 

 

I'm not a victim, and would never claim to be one. Key Forsythe and Mike Jbara acted like children during my presentation. They only fueled the anti-mQa fire by doing so. If those two only knew how many people in the industry thanked me and still come up to me today to talk about how much they despise mQa, they may change their strategies. I've had people tell me they will never do business with JBara because of how he acts. Even if they were on the fence about implementing mQa, it's totally off the table because doing business with certain people only makes one's life harder. 

 

I didn't miscalculate anything. I gave the seminar an accurate title. 

 

So people are supposed to applaud Forsythe and Jbara for waiting ten whole minutes before they turned into petulant children?

 

There really is much more that all audio publications do other than talk about mQa. However, when someone is an anti-vaxxer, I won't take much medical advice from them. Same goes for mQa and audio. A writer that can't talk truthfully about mQa is someone that I can't believe about anything else. And by truthfully, I mean the whole truth. Not cherry picking pieces. 

 

Speaking of Q, look at the tactics that have been used by mQa over the years. If you don't see similarities, you aren't looking hard enough. It isn't just me seeing this. I have communications from people, unsolicited, that can't believe the striking similarities in how mQa acts and how the previous Q-supporting administration acted. 

 

Knowing how mQa operates, I find no coincidence in the recent posts and support by JA of your posts. 

 

The lack of consumer advocacy by the old guard blows my mind. 

I have just watched the RMAF video and Im frankly gobsmacked at the MQA employees behaviour.  They clearly had no technical defense of the points being raised so resorted to irrelevancies and interruptions to attempt to derail your presentation.

 

I think if you are in that situation again there is one simple response that will stop them in their tracks.  Doint getinvolved in any debate, just ask them to provide an MQA encoder for you (other industry experts) to use to evaluate MQAs performance.  Hold their feet to the fire, close down the blustering responses they will give.  If they are not prepared and demonstrate that MQA does what they claim and not what we know it does, then by default all the concerns and criticisms have been proven.

[March Audio]

@GoldenOne I have just put up links to you videos and some commentary on our forum.

[March Audio]

On 5/29/2021 at 3:34 PM, lamode said:

When I told Amir that MQA had NOT provided reasonable explanations, this was his response:

 

 

Wow, he is really embarrassing himself and insulting his forum users in the process. "Meltdown" is an apt description.

Just read a bit of the thread.  His arguments in support MQA range from specious to plain insulting the intelligence of readers.  When cornered he literally insults people.

 

So apparently according to Amir MQA never claimed to be lossless, it's just apparently perceptually lossless and everyone misunderstood.  LMAO 😀

[March Audio]

2 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

This is not lost on even the most casual of observers, however incompatible that is with the pipe dream fantasy that Master Quality Adulterated is not only lossless but  "better than lossless".

 

 

 

.

Unfortunately I think it may well get lost. 

 

Many observers of this debacle do not have sufficient technical knowledge (no disrespect meant to anyone) to understand the debate.  So it may just come down to whichever side of the argument they perceive to be more credible.  That can be down to something as simple as trusting an individual who is presenting a certain POV.

 

MQA and their supporters are erroneously presenting some of Goldenones tests as an indication of incompetence or lack of understanding in an attempt to discredit.  The reality is it helped demonstrate the encoder is not lossless and can be tripped up with the "wrong" content.  All non problems with LPCM.

[March Audio]

16 hours ago, svart-hvitt said:

The marvelous thing about MQA is that MQA supporters can say anything without people reacting. The other day, Amir described Sean Olive as incompetent in matters related to MQA. Olive says:

 

«Claiming it sounds better than lossless can be validated with controlled listening tests. As far as I know, no such data exists or has been submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Until that exists, it'd nothing more than a marketing claim.. without scientific evidence».

 

How far can MQA proponents go in describing people they disagree with as incompetent? Why are MQA supporters so strong in their belief in their own competencies and so dismissing of others whose experience and credentials are normally regarded as outstanding?

 

The fact that Amir suggests Olive is a gullible person running errands for an «anti-MQA PR campaing» borders on defamation.

 

and some wonder why Amir is being accused of being in MQAs pocket?  Sean Olive is just stating the bleedin obvious - and taking a scientific/objective approach.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, jparvio said:

I feel sorry for the common audiophile, who has no part in all of this but tries to figure out who is "right" and who is "wrong" while seeing valued members of the global audio community lose their dignity overnight fighting like street dogs. To my age (46) I've never ever witnessed such a childish wrestle over... Well, anything.   

 

As a journalist I keep coming to the  question the common audiophile need to get answered OBJECTIVELY; who benefits from MQA and how? I know this has been discussed thousand times and over, but... 

 

...Every Magazine, Audio site, journalist and professional (globally) should do their best to excel in getting the truth out. If there are many "truths", then at least try to gather the facts for Consensus ( a common man's white paper). And always representing the weakest side, in this case the Consumer.

 

Right now this is getting out of hands and serves nobody.  

 

How do we get to the truth if MQA won't allow technical or proper subjective investigation?

 

That in itself provides a strong indication of where the truth lies.

 

MQA could end all of this in an instant if they allowed 3rd party testing.  It would be in their commercial interest to do so, and yet they won't.  What possible reason could there be for that if it really did what they claim?

 

I'm not sure this is anything childish, it's quite serious and about commercial interests/money.  MQA have a lot to lose.

 

[March Audio]

16 minutes ago, jparvio said:

 

Yes this is alarming, I admit. Which brings to me to the exact reason why I urge every audio journalist locally and globally to concentrate on the truth. If any of us feel to be between a rock and a hard place then it is time to look in the mirror.  

 

 

 

If one cannot trust the professionals working for audio press and alike then the harm is already done. There should be a line between journalism and advertorials and personal opinions contra the truth.  

 

I think the fundamental truth is already there and it has nothing to do with the technical arguments.

 

Do we actually need another proprietary file compression system?

 

The answer to that is clearly no.  Flac does the job and its free.  Streaming file size is a non issue.  If you can stream Netflix you can stream hi res audio.

 

So why would anyone want to get locked into a proprietary system that charges for its use?  These costs get passed on to the consumer.

 

The technical questions are somewhat moot after this fundamental point.

[March Audio]

3 hours ago, jparvio said:

 

I Agree but this is not about me or my opinion alone. It would help enormously if the Audiophile Press was pushing for the truth as one, don't You think? From time to time it looks like MQA is not even fighting it's own battle and that hurts.  

Oh of course, but is it that simple?  There are potential conflicts of interest.  Not pointing to any publication and speaking generally, a hifi magazine may carry adverts from a dac manufacturer who is pro MQA.  There may be personal/professional relationships and so on.   Some of the hifi press / magazines are just advertising platforms

 

BTW our Finnish Spitz dogs Kimi ans Oona say hello, well woof 😉

[March Audio]

14 minutes ago, jparvio said:

 

Nothing in life is easy or direct and this case is no exception to the rule. But money or personal relationship/agenda should not be in the Way. This is exactly what should separate advertorial -based platforms from journalism.  

 

In Dogs I trust. There is never a hidden agenda or rainy Day to that matter 😍

 

 

This is why MQA wont allow technical testing.  It is truly objective and the tests and results can be repeated/verified by others.

 

You are so right about dogs 😀

 

I am very sorry to hear about yours, we lost our first Finnish Spitz Mika a few years ago.