MQA is Vaporware

[jma2]

Dear all,

Curious to what has been said in this lecture on MQA at the annual conference of the German Chaos Computer Club.

The recording may become available soon here.

 

Kind regards and forgive me if this was referred to in previous messages or in another thread.

 

jma2

[jma2]

To both JAs, you are an "authority"! You write down stuff which influences people in their buying patterns. You may have -  and live the ethics to properly and honestly report on equipment and new codecs but you influence people whether you want or not.

 

If certain "people", whether anonymous or not factually prove your assessments wrong (use the search engine to find all the facts, I do not want to repeat them for you) and you are unwilling to engage in a proper discussion on the basis on the anonymity of an author which proves you wrong, the people get a doubt about your "authority". Please note that in history, "authority" has always been challenged by the "people". Why are you so surprised?!

 

If you, being the "authority" cannot put any factual counter-arguments on the table to counter argue facts presented by Archimago and react as strongly as you do to rumors (that you deliberately chose to interpret in the worst possible way as it suits you), you as an authority lose credibility with at least some some of the "people". Why are you so surprised?!

 

With respect to Chris, I would suppose that his codec-neutrality with respect to this topic was changed strongly only after the - for many of the "people" - eye-opening event of his presentation. He may have been skeptical before, for sure, but the misconduct in the audience was so revealing...

 

I understand it must hurt to read the rumors and I understand your outburst here... and I also understand that it may not be easy to bite the hand that feeds you (I mean herewith: write something against one of your advertisers) but at the same time I suggest you look at this whole MQA discussion from a helicopter view, take a bit of distance, open your eyes and engage in a discussion in which you should engage, rather than keep on stirring the pot in a way which casts even doubts on the "ethics" front. You shouldn't be surprised!

 

Music is all about emotions and "people" react on emotions... MQA is not about emotions, it is about money, control and lies as far as I see it. I belong to the "people", not so skilled as many regular posters here, but I have learned a lot from this thread... I hope many do so. I wish you did.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jan

 

[jma2]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. 

 

It is impossible to audit every bank account. But it is quite easy to get to know a writer and assess his (or, regrettably rarely, her) character and establish trust. That's something that isn't possible on the Internet, especially with respect to anonymous posters. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

If you write something positive about MQA, it's clear who could benefit from that...

If someone writes something negative about MQA based on facts, who could benefit from that, except for the end-users? Serious, tell me.

 

Jan

 

[jma2]

I am just curious: If somebody using his real name would write an article titled "Some objective insights in the folding/unfolding audio treatement by MQA-processing", which would explain objectively and factual what we all have learned from Archimago and could verify, in the most neutral manner possible, and offer this article to JA for publication in Stereophile, knowing that JA and/or his colleague JA are perfectly capable of verifying these facts;

would such an article get accepted and published?

 

Jan

[jma2]

40 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

We can only hope........

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with Qobuz in my opinion. And if you buy music from them regularly, you can through the discount rate for subscribers earn back you subscription.

 

I moved from Tidal to Qobuz and plan to keep on supporting them. They are quite responsive to queries and I am a happy customer.

 

Jan

[jma2]

Now I am confused...

 

Does this mean that only big labels (Warner, etc) and artists under heavy NDAs (= never release the originals from which the MQA-version is derived) can get their masters the MQA treatement?

 

A random artist cannot go to MQA with original material, have it MQAd for a price, and hand out both versions to whomever the artist wants?  Would the NDA stipulate that the artist can either distribute "only" the MQAd version or distribute "only" the original version?

 

When I write it down like this, on the one hand it looks like a joke, while on the other hand it is the superlative of a drama (native speakers help me out here). Or maybe I'm just stupid, which would also be  joke 😉

 

Jan

 

[jma2]

Because it is all available on a sampler, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some pre-MQA-transformation-processing done for giving the masters (from which the MQA is supposed to be derived) the proper "sound", which even Mr Elias is not aware of.

 

In any case, there's also other lossy codecs which sometimes can sound pretty good, though hardly ever as good as the original (without remastering).

So if Mr Elias likes the lossy MQA sound or even prefers it over his DSD versions, OK for me. After all, it supposedly generates the sound the artist wanted it to sound, no?!

 

Jan

[jma2]

I am not a financial specialist, but these accumulated debt figures 2016-2018 do not look very convincing.

Wouldn't MQA in the meantime fit the definition of a "zombie company"? Money being cheap and all...

 

Jan

[jma2]

No need to get "militaristic" in my opinion. Just live-up to your opinion if you (just like me) don't want MQA to go anywhere (e.g. avoid MQA enabled gear/services/advertising entities) and properly inform your "neighborhood" or surroundings when they ask you for advice. Our wallet is our best instrument to put to the cause.

 

I am actually quite pleasantly surprised lately about how many people already see the picture concerning MQA. More and more people (at least in my environment) seem to have a de-blurred vision concerning MQA. The propaganda isn't working anymore in my opinion (even though the danger of MQA might still be relevant) or at least less and less. The investors in MQA might realize this but still have some contractual dependencies. After Corona and once these terms end, they might well review their investments in a better directions (at least it would seem logical to me). The equipment vendors might have chosen MQA as "another" option to differentiate themselves from the rest at the time of the hype or not to miss the hype... they may already regret it eventually (or am I naive?).

 

To give you an example: My neighbor consulted me for a new and modern system, went to the local shop to listen to some available gear and explicitly told the owner of the good shop not being interested in any MQA enabled equipment. That, according to my neighbor caused the owner of the shop to sympathize (real or not, I don't know). Nevertheless the owner luckily had sufficient non-MQA enabled gear to choose from. My neighbor also chose Qobuz over Tidal (no, I didn't push him, but guided him, pointed him to the "objective" articles (also referred to by others recently)).

 

In short, we can all do something right and meaningfull without the need to offend or get aggressive about it. By the way, I don't have a problem with people who want to shout about it either... Even though it is not my style, it might sometimes trigger a wake-up call/reminder for the right cause!

 

[jma2]

On 5/30/2020 at 6:14 PM, Kal Rubinson said:

This thread reminds me of an old joke from high school:

Two guys on a city bus.

Guy1:  Why do you keep throwing tissues out of the window throughout the ride?
Guy2:  They keep away the elephants.

Guy1:  But there are no elephants................

Guy2:  Effective, isn't it?

🙃

Could it be that those guys both missed "the elephant in the city bus"?

😉

[jma2]

Curious to see who will take over the IP (as far as still alive), and how long they will keep on paying the renewal fees for the remains:

https://register.epo.org/smartSearch?searchMode=smart&query=MQA

 

And for me, MQA is not a dodo. I have too much sympathy for Raphus cucullatus to get it associated with something like MQA ;-)

[jma2]

The Internet archive will help: https://archive.org/web/

 

For those who are still confused... this is how the "magic" in 2016 "really" worked:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160109113132/http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-works

 

 

 

[jma2]

Let's see. Not sure it's going to make much of a splash...

 

Considering the sparse news history on their website, it seems they are pretty busy with patent related issues.

If they managed to pick up the IP-assets cheap, maybe they hope to recuperate some of the undisclosed settlement in license fees they had to pay to Sonos. Imagine how "much" they could pick up from all the MQA-CDs that are being/going to be sold

 

Of course all the fancy marketing terms/blur linked to MQA can be recuperated for free (everybody already jumping on it), but I wouldn't bet on MQA 2.0 . And if need be, debunking 2.0 lays in wait...

 

 

[jma2]

13 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

I think its time to draw this discussion to an end - I've seen enough.

 

Heheh, finally! Goodbye and enjoy the music!