Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

I was looking at a couple of portable music players to replace my Fiio X1 (Still works great, but I would like to have something with slightly better SQ). I looked at, among other options, the new Sony Walkman ZX300 that has MQA. The marketing text on the product mage was interesting.

 

No mention of MQA in the blurb.

No mention of MQA is the landing area of the product page. The USPs listed are DSD (Understandable for a Sony product), 384khzPCM, the different Sony audio enhancement features etc...

Only a small MQA logo and some text about lossless streaming further down the page. No mention of the "Magical" features.

 

That's about it.

 

Sony is pretty clearly treating MQA as a "Check in the feature list" thing than putting any weight behind it.

 

I will probably go with a FiiO X3 Mk III though. Looks to be a no nonsense player with no major BS.

Link to comment
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... :D

 

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!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, labjr said:

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

I heard the admission was $200k, though that might have been inaccurate. Wouldn't surprise me if you get to see the full NDA terms only after paying the fee and signing a letter of intent.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Since Stereophile's Jim Austin is going to do a series on MQA technology I wrote him a letter on Audio Asylum.

 

Dear Jim Austin,

 

On October 21, 2017 you said you don’t understand the technology behind MQA and yet you are going to write a series about it?

Your series should make interesting reading because in that same October 21, 2017 response to stehno you called him an idiot “for not at least considering that they (Peter Craven and Bob Stuart) might understand things better than you do.” For you to be intellectually consistent you now have to consider others may understand things better than Peter Craven and Bob Stuart do.

 

In your series on MQA Technology I would like the following addressed at a minimum.

1.       I want you to look at the research supporting the technology of MQA and tell me if it supports the claims MQA Ltd is making. Next I want you to tell me if the math supports the claims MQA makes. To write objectively about the research and the math you will have to analyze both sides pro MQA and anti MQA.

2.       Moving on the filters MQA uses they are not new  so I want to know why MQA Ltd decided to use these filters when so many others have chosen not to use these types of filters. 

3.       MQA uses Peter Craven’s patented method for degrading files and reconstructing them. Why is this step necessary? Following this train of thought why aren’t other methods of file compression equally as valid as the method MQA uses?

4.       People in studios who were shown MQA found that it changed their masters in 2014. It took until last month at the AES convention in New York City for MQA Ltd to acknowledge the problem and promise a solution so engineers could hear how the final product would sound. I want to know why MQA needs to change the master when other high resolution files don’t change the master.

 

You have made a few comments defending the industry and the press for its lack of technical rigor concerning MQA. You actually indicted the industry and the press. This is why people outside the industry realized if the technology behind MQA was going to be examined that we would have to do it ourselves.  And we did on the Computer Audiophile site starting January 2, 2017.

 

Sincerely,

 

Stephen

Stephen,

 

we started a dispute about the weakness and issues of MQA in the PonoMusic Community already in October 2015. Probably not with the deep technological impact of the participants in this thread but finally with the same intend. ?

 

Tom

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mansr said:

I wasn't following Pono closely back then (seeing it as a dead end). I'd be curious to learn what convinced them to abandon the proto-MQA they were being sold by Meridian.

 

Nobody outside the inner circle of PonoMusic knows what happened between Neil Young and Bob Steward. Anyway, there are a lot of audiophiles who pledged for the PonoPlayer on Kickstarter, not because of the weird marketing campaign, but to get a DAP, powered by Ayre Acoustic, to a bargain price and the vision of a download store for music, with the best available resolution, to reasonable prices and accessible in all major markets, globally. That was the idea, but unfortunately it was wishful thinking and the project bursts because of the reality of an international split market for digital rights, management failures and missing investors.

However in the still existing community, most people are geared about listening to music in the quality as the artists may experience it in the studio along with Neil Youngs statement (I know, it is just a slogan ?) and the ability to purchase the music in the best quality without any DRM obstacles.

 

MQA is anything else than that. Maybe, Neal Young and his team recognized the contradiction in Bob Stewards conception about MQA in this early stage, I don't know.

 

Finally, the idea behind the PonoMusic concept was the opposite to what MQA still wants to achieve: Make music available for any customer for one price up to the real studio quality in FLAC 24/192 without any restrictions. 

 

Realistically, it was predictable that this would encounter the resistance from the labels, but it's another story. 

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Thanks Archimago,

 

Journalism died in the United States with the Duke Lacrosse Case in 2006. There are only people expressing their point of view left now so I have no expectations of anything but a marketing piece for MQA. After all Jim Austin wants to keep writing for Stereophile and that requires supporting MQA.

 

Take care,

 

Stephen

Somebody had to say it....

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, semente said:

 

If you see audio magazines as journalism then I'm affraid your expectations are misplaced.

Marketing vehicle would, in my view, in most cases, be more a adequate designation.

 

The Duke Lacrosse Case was the final nail in the coffin of American journalism. Many good arguments can be made for an earlier date of death. Personally for me American Journalism died in the seventies but that is a story for a history site not an audio one. In any case the people who own Stereophile make no bones about they are a showcase for advertisers. I've always said Stereophile should emulate Street Rodder. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

After all this thread here has 226 pages already and who knows how many views.

 

I know. 228,795.

But that wasn't difficult to guess.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

1)  Will Austin actually talk about facts as opposed to his own subjective impressions?

A:  Only the "facts" of so much of audiophiledom, the assertions of this or that product/company.  For example he will use terms like "Hi Res" without any definition, not bothering to explain that MQA is in fact a lossy facsimile of actual Hi Res PCM.  Bit depth will be something "perceived", and math will have nothing to do with it.

 

2)  Will he just call up a bunch of people to interview as if having a bunch of voices on the "pro" side carries much weight in the face of objective analysis?

A:  Yes, but he will also glue bits and pieces of these interviews together in what appears to be a coherent and believable story of MQA.  He is a storyteller first and foremost, and has to tow the line of his pro-MQA, anti consumer publication

 

3) Will he bother presenting the opinions of those who voice objections against MQA?

A:  Yes, in a negative light and then he will repeat the unverifiable marketing verbiage of MQA.  What else can he do?  How MQA really works is behind the black box of IP/DRM.

 

4)Will he/Stereophile create their own diagrams and illustrations independently or run images and ideas fed to them by MQA Ltd. / Bob Stuart?

A:  No, only MQA supplied information of any kind.  What other kind of information is there besides pro-consumer based reverse engineering? As a likely NDA signor (and certainly working for those who are) he is not even allowed to do otherwise.

 

5)Will they actually bother to do their own blind testing with some kind of controls?

A:  No

 

 

 

 

 

And Stereophile will probably be handsomely paid for it.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...