MQA is Vaporware

[jparvio]

On 12/30/2020 at 10:47 AM, Archimago said:

...

I think for me the greatest disappointment as an audiophile consumer is the lack of independent journalism in the audiophile world. Folks willing to ask tough questions and demand evidence. ...

 

This is not the whole truth. Unfortunately many consumers do not bother to question the salesmen "truth" even if (a hifi Journalist) try to steer them towards the available facts. I know this from experience. Audiophile community should also understand that most of the consumers (or even hifi hobbyists) are not after the most authentic sound available. Many settle for what they personally consider as "good or likeable sound" whatever that is for them. Can we really blame consumers for adopting something like MQA after decades of Ogg, MP3 etc.? No, I am not giving up but th whole World cannot be saved. It is what it is.         

[jparvio]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

If MQA was marketed as an "perceptully lossless" alternative to Ogg, mp3 etc., we would welcome it as an improvement. But when the false marketing and intention to replace actual lossless are taken into account, it simply isn't something acceptable.

And I totally agree. But even amongst audiophiles there are people welcoming MQA. People who should know better. 

[jparvio]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

MP3 and Vorbis are now open standards.  You do not have to pay royalties to produce or play them.

MQA would have you pay royalties at each stage of the implementation.

If MQA became the distribution standard, then every music consumer would be paying for it.

I know this, You know this. About 99,9% of the people who consume music one way or the other don´t understand why they should be aware of MQA´s hidden agenda. And as I mentioned earlier I get the feeling most of them don´t even care and that saddens me.  

[jparvio]

I totally knew Warner had MQAshed lots of material. What I did not know is that they don´t even give the 16bit 44,1 flac version (clearly there is one since this is for sale as cd) or even bother mentioning that the version is MQA. I recently played Nathalia Stutzmann and my non-MQA-dac went 96k. Erato=Warner=MQA? Or am I jumping into conclusion here? Could somebody with MQA-dac please check this.

 

This is an example from Tidal (within Roon):

 

 

[jparvio]

On 1/15/2021 at 12:08 PM, jparvio said:

I totally knew Warner had MQAshed lots of material. What I did not know is that they don´t even give the 16bit 44,1 flac version (clearly there is one since this is for sale as cd) or even bother mentioning that the version is MQA. I recently played Nathalia Stutzmann and my non-MQA-dac went 96k. Erato=Warner=MQA? Or am I jumping into conclusion here? Could somebody with MQA-dac please check this.

 

This is an example from Tidal (within Roon):

 

 

 

Funny.... now all the info is there. I wonder what happened.

 

[jparvio]

Not sure what to make out of this. What exactly has been changed in MQA:

 

https://positive-feedback.com/industry-news/simaudio-announces-tidal-master-mqa-problem-with-the-moon-mind-2-fix-coming/

[jparvio]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Are they trying to hide the fact that its MQA?

 

Your guess is as good as mine. 

[jparvio]

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.  

 

[jparvio]

33 minutes ago, March Audio said:

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.

 

 

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.  

 

 

19 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have seen a lot of people in the audio industry LIE OUTRIGHT on certain subjects, even to the extent that I have lost an industry friend because of that.   It has become pretty obvious that a LOT of industry associated people are afraid of losing social contacts and business contacts in the audio community.   There is a definite sense to me that some have sold out their responsibility to the truth to maintain social and ongoing business convenience.   I don't believe that there is a background conduit for money or a 'secret society'.

 

After thinking about this for a long time, and some major people in the audio industry telling misinformation in two important cases, looking at all alternatives that I can think of -- it reduces to primarialy simple social pressure, and to a lesser extent some business pressure.

 

One bout of misinformation came to me a long time before I even heard of MQA, but dismissed it as eccentricity.   In that case, I thought the misinformation was more of the individual being uninformed.   Eventually, I found that it seems to be that the industry community has a sense of a common party line or common 'excuse'.   I am seeing MQA starting to develop in the same way.

 

THIS TIME we (the technically  aware) consumer can communicate more easily, and cannot as easily be stonewalled and overwhelmed by 'industry experts' .  We can resist a new, developing industry standard maltruth, mistruth, untruth or whatever you might call it.   I am probably one of the more technically knowledgeable people who dabbles in audio, having made a mistake (unintentionally) early in my career by stating an untruth, with my conscience hurting me to this day.   I can not allow my integrity be compromised because I do have a conscience. My friends and not-so-much friends deserve to hear the best truth from me that I can express.

 

Bottom line -- DO NOT be influenced by industry experts, even if you feel that so many 'experts' can not be wrong.   Fact is, these industry experts have either intentionally or unintentionally (like me in the past) sold out their integrity for one reason or another.   Only those who might rescind this untruth can maintain their sense of honesty and integrity.  Personally, the MQA thing and the previous industry lie makes me sick, and I further loose a sense that people are generally honest.   I thought that it was just government politics that was dirty and many of the players had little integrity, but it really seems like many (not all) in the audio world are like that also.

 

Sadly, most audio experts are no longer 'experts' in my eyes.   Some can earn my respect, and a few at my own level (as advanced technical types) have earned my respect here.  However, my default social trajectory is to protect my integrity by limiting my involvement with those who really should feel ashamed of themselves.   Dismissing knowledgeable MQA advocating experts is the only way that I can maintain my own integrity.   Those advocating MQA who are simply misguided can more easily recover their  sense of right and wrong.

 

John

 

 

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.  

 

[jparvio]

24 minutes ago, March Audio said:

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.

 

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.  

[jparvio]

19 minutes ago, Stereo said:

Very well put but don’t rule out their potentially massively overinflated egos that have been deflated and their tiny brains not knowing how to accept it and grow up. Unlike yourself. Rather sad of them really. Perhaps they need counseling.

If You are painting, be sure not to stain the whole canvas.

[jparvio]

10 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

If I had a piece of software that would compress hi-res music files and make them sound better than hi-res when played (REALLY) then I'm sure I could make money just selling it. Wouldn't you buy it?

 

Why would I need to foist it on everyone with no choice allowed?

 

Not sure who this was targeted to..?  Me?

 

When it comes to MQA I don't use it. I even moved from Tidal to Qobuz the minute they officially offered service in Finland since I don't accept Tidal´s MQA policy (replacing originals with MQA-versions). I believe people should be left with freedom of choice but they need to be educated so that they can select wisely.  

 

I'm not for foisting anything to anyone. Except for the truth when it comes to MQA. Saddens me to see where this all has lead; stationary War between the sides, much like the WW1.

 

What a shame, really.   

[jparvio]

42 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

The problem is that the audiophile press is not ... press.

 

"Journalism is the discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying and presenting information regarding current events, trends, issues and people. "

 

There are of course exceptions, but they are very rare, and seldomly long-lived.

 

 

Well that's the thing... It could and definitely should be. To me it is. I did study it amongst other things. 

 

Yet journalists can have their personal opinions and likings (subjective) if and when there's no hidden agendas. I must say that at least in Finland no audio journalist possess a multi 100 000 € systems like they do overseas. Lack of commitment or something else? But enough of that.

 

Yet not one journalist is above the truth in any way, no matter the size of the ego. And eventually it is Editor-in-Chief who's responsible for the Magazines core ethics - or should be. If the board of owners has all the say-so then independent and objective journalism has left the building.

 

MQA should not be an exception when it comes to objective journalism. 

  

[jparvio]

29 minutes ago, March Audio said:

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 padded out with some colourful, and always complimentary, stories about bits of kit.

 

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 with them 😍I buried our Finnish Spitz dog naemd Mörö a Year ago...😢

 

 

[jparvio]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Jussi, here is how it looks to me. Investors put in $52 million and are committed to put in in another $13 million. The labels contributed $11million in services and about 200 plus members of audio press actively supported MQA. The oposition was a few real professionals, some very good engineers and more than a few audiophiles thought things seemed fishy.  

 

I never liked WW1 analogies but if this is staionary war, the casulaties are investors money and audio journalists. The investors can spend all the money they want but it won't change the outcome. And if we lose 300 to 400 audio journalists I don't have a problem with that. They all have nice portfolios of ad copy, what you call reviews to for their next employers.

 

I hear You loud and clear and I don't disagree at all.

 

Let me put it this way from a JOURNALIST´s point of view; one should activate readers by letting them know all there is to it (facts only). I have seen very few JOURNALISTS to do even this. I do not worry about those who are openly supporting mqa.At least they are out in the open. But there are many more pro writers being silent and just anxiously waiting this to come to an end - one way or the other. It is so much easier.

   

[jparvio]

To put our mouth where the money is; journalism is NOT DEAD, at least in the free World. Against normal protocols I decided to publish here this months Editorial from our Editor-in-Chief. Remove if necessary. For those who don't do Finnish (what a shame), headline translates more or less to "The scam of master proportions":