MQA is Vaporware

[Miska]

1 minute ago, beetlemania said:

Meanwhile, I found that John Atkinson DID send his raw files plus impulse response to MQA 

Why on Earth would he do that?

 

Because MQA doesn't let anybody have the encoder (without $20k encoder-box they sell). They sell encoding service where you pay to get your tracks encoded. And probably requires signing very restrictive NDA to get any kind access to any of this.

 

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

Is that the best reply you can muster? 

 

So you join this forum pretty much exclusively to slag off MQA, clearly  hold audiophiles in contempt and don't appear to have anything positive to contribute to the field of computer audio.  If anything you are making me think maybe there's something in this MQA after all....

 

 

 

 

Seriously, is there is something wrong with your comprehension? What is the title of this thread? What is the topic

of this thread?  When I need your advice on what content to post and on what threads I will drop you a line.

[Norton]

13 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Seriously, is there is something wrong with your comprehension? What is the title of this thread? What is the topic

of this thread?  When I need your advice on what content to post and on what threads I will drop you a line.

 

On the contrary, I comprehend you only too well...

[Miska]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always thought HDCDs offered redbook quality on standard players and "enhanced" quality on HDCD players. I don't believe there is a version of degraded quality, but I could be wrong.

 

Just like MQA claims? Sounds familiar?

 

In practice the HDCD makes you lose one or two of the precious 16 bits of RedBook, standard players will clip the peaks harder due to the way it is encoded and instead of proper dither the LSB is not working the way it should (very important for CD too) causing more loss of precision. As result HDCD is not properly dithered.

 

Sony's SBM which was earlier developments of noise shaped dither for CD use was better approach and didn't need any special playback hardware or "decoding".

 

[Lee Scoggins]

49 minutes ago, synn said:

Voting with the wallet is how I have always approached such topics. 

 

I boycotted Sony for years after the rootkit mess. I now have a living room full of Sony shit. I don’t have brand loyalty, I only support companies who aren’t out to shaft people. 

 

I do agree on the general premise that MQA is not a company that has the listeners’ best interest at heart. My wallet will vote accordingly.

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

[beetlemania]

11 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Are you saying he sent the stems, the multi-track files, and not the two channel mixes???

 

In the discussion section of the linked article, JA wrote:

Quote

But to answer your question: As I used 3 pairs of microphones and 2 types of A/D converter to produce the mixdown—see the photos—as well as the mixdown I sent Bob Stuart each of the 3 mike-pair recordings, including an impulse response recording for each, and full details of the mix.

 

So, he sent 1) his final mix; 2) tracks of each of three mic pairs; and 3) the impulse responses!

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Just like MQA claims? Sounds familiar?

 

In practice the HDCD makes you lose one or two of the precious 16 bits of RedBook, standard players will clip the peaks harder due to the way it is encoded and instead of proper dither the LSB is not working the way it should (very important for CD too) causing more loss of precision. As result HDCD is not properly dithered.

 

Sony's SBM which was earlier developments of noise shaped dither for CD use was better approach and didn't need any special playback hardware or "decoding".

 

Excellent reply Miska. Thanks for the information.

[beetlemania]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Because MQA doesn't let anybody have the encoder (without $20k encoder-box they sell). They sell encoding service where you pay to get your tracks encoded. And probably requires signing very restrictive NDA to get any kind access to any of this.

 

 

So, MQA can only be created from the raw tracks, not the final master?

[Miska]

1 hour ago, beetlemania said:

So, MQA can only be created from the raw tracks, not the final master?

 

No, from the final master... Don't know why he would send anything else. I'm pretty certain nothing else than final master has been sent for all those Tidal masters...

 

My point was just that one cannot encode MQA from the final master on their own.

 

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, beetlemania said:

 

In the discussion section of the linked article, JA wrote:

 

So, he sent 1) his final mix; 2) tracks of each of three mic pairs; and 3) the impulse responses!

Clearly to stack the deck for Uncle Bob. The story is becoming more pathetic with each passing week.

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

Sorry, as a so called "reviewer" that is not good enough. You are supposed to be a consumer advocate by definition,

not a marketing operative. It is clear you are not capable of critical reporting.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’ve never understood the “don’t like it don’t buy it” mentality. It only makes sense if you’re a company who doesn’t want to grow very big, thus leaving other options available. 

 

 

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve never understood the “don’t like it don’t buy it” mentality. It only makes sense if you’re a company who doesn’t want to grow very big, thus leaving other options available. 

Even large companies often tolerate competition. I don't see Ford pushing "tech" that would make every Mercedes incompatible with new roads.

[davide256]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Just like MQA claims? Sounds familiar?

 

In practice the HDCD makes you lose one or two of the precious 16 bits of RedBook, standard players will clip the peaks harder due to the way it is encoded and instead of proper dither the LSB is not working the way it should (very important for CD too) causing more loss of precision. As result HDCD is not properly dithered.

 

Sony's SBM which was earlier developments of noise shaped dither for CD use was better approach and didn't need any special playback hardware or "decoding".

 

And conversely I bought a Linn Genki HDCD player in 2001 because it was the first time I heard a CD format that sounded  like music instead of torture 

[Miska]

Just now, davide256 said:

And conversely I bought a Linn Genki HDCD player in 2001 because it was the first time I heard a CD format that sounded  like music instead of torture 

 

Only the few HDCD discs, or in general?

 

AFAIK, Linn never had any special DSP, just COTS stuff on the digital side. IIRC Wolfson's DAC chips, which, BTW, some have apodizing digital filters.

 

[davide256]

Just now, Miska said:

 

Only the few HDCD discs, or in general?

 

AFAIK, Linn never had any special DSP, just COTS stuff on the digital side. IIRC Wolfson's DAC chips, which, BTW, some have apodizing digital filters.

 

HDCD's in particular... CD's sounded better than other less expensive players but all player DAC's of the time  seemed to generate the harmonics of a dentist's drill with 16 bit music.  I don't hesitate to buy HDCD's for ripping because dbPoweramp has an HDCD plugin to give you a 20 bit depth in 24 bits. Of course I know  now that DAC's and transport tech of the time were the real culprit for why CD's sounded awful.

[Miska]

39 minutes ago, mansr said:

Even large companies often tolerate competition. I don't see Ford pushing "tech" that would make every Mercedes incompatible with new roads.

 

Reminds me of clueless press reporting based on Fraunhofer & Sisvel & Technicolor's press release about end-of-licensing this spring that now MP3 is now dead and everybody should move to AAC and other codecs which of course was highly recommended in the same press release.

 

Because the patent licensing ended. Which happened because all relevant patents have expired across the globe.  So now everybody can use MP3 without paying royalties (that lovely minimum $20k/year that all small companies must love). But since it is open standard, it also means that people can now freely develop codecs and it by no means ends use of MP3 in products.

 

If it would have been like MQA, it could actually be dead by now without any new products coming out. And everybody could be required to upgrade new shiny hardware with MQA2.

 

[crenca]

As far as MQA being a different company than Meridian, I don't think that is (on a practical level) the case.  I understand the separation is a typical accounting maneuver used mostly as a response to tax/accounting rules.  Who is or is not on this or that board is not relevant either as I understand it.  

[Miska]

8 minutes ago, davide256 said:

HDCD's in particular... CD's sounded better than other less expensive players but all player DAC's of the time  seemed to generate the harmonics of a dentist's drill with 16 bit music.

 

I know exactly what you are talking about! (Philips SAA7220 digital filter + TDA1541A DAC chip - argh what a dentist machine)

 

And now MQA wants to bring some of that back with the leaky MQA filters.

 

In my opinion HDCD doesn't fix that at all, but good digital filters and modulators on delta-sigma DACs do actually fix that.

 

10 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I don't hesitate to buy HDCD's for ripping because dbPoweramp has an HDCD plugin to give you a 20 bit depth in 24 bits.

 

Just remember to uncheck that one box in the HDCD plugin settings, otherwise it generates increased amount of distortion. That checkbox unfortunately doesn't work like the description says. I needed to re-rip my HDCD's due to that...

 

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

As far as MQA being a different company than Meridian, I don't think that is (on a practical level) the case.  I understand the separation is a typical accounting maneuver used mostly as a response to tax/accounting rules.  Who is or is not on this or that board is not relevant either as I understand it.  

It's all about Bob Stuart. Whether he's flying the Meridian or the MQA flag on any given day is irrelevant.

[rwdvis]

15 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I am honestly undecided based on what I have heard and what I have read.  If you don't believe that then I am not sure there is anything I can do to convince you.

 

One reason I don't want to rush to judgment is that I am still learning as a recording professional what the new work flow for engineers will be like.  Even my friend Mehow at Mytek is still working on that.  One thing MQA has to do, imho, for success is get a workflow that professionals can use without too much inconvenience.

 

Also, the whole are of DRM versus enforcing a standard is a bit murky to me but I will dig deeper on that and share what I learn as long as folks here show some respect.

Just repeating yourself but adding the word “honestly” doesn’t magically change anything.  Sorry, but the smiley, sweet talk might work on the gullible and naive, but not here.

[rwdvis]

14 hours ago, synn said:

To be fair, dealers shill a lot of stuff. And not just in audio.

 

 

So I guess that makes it okay then?  Others do it, so have at it all you MQA shills.

 

You know there is a difference between shilling, and marketing and promoting a product, don’t you?

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I think it's always great to keep motives in mind. This can lead to answers easily some times. 

 

It would be a smart business decision for MQA ltd to recruit dealers and manufacturers and whomever, to shill for the product. Commerce is key. Whatever moves boxes is going to be pushed by people who sell boxes. That's just what they do. 

 

I don't see anything wrong with any manufacturer recruiting dealers to shill. But, ignoring this fact or possibility is less than genuine. 

Wow, this says something about you.  You realize there’s a difference between shilling and marketing, promoting and representing a product, don’t you?  Shilling involves lying, harm and deception.  You’re okay with that?  Is shilling permitted on your site?  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were confusing marketing and promotion with shilling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

 

I would argue that it’s a bad business decision for companies to use shills.  Once it becomes obvious that shills are being used, and it should be obvious at this point in the case of MQA, then the company loses all credibility.  It demonstrates that there’s not much the business has to offer, so it has to rely on lies and deception to sell whatever it is it’s selling.

13 hours ago, mansr said:

Did @The Computer Audiophile get another call from Bob Stuart? He's suddenly pushing back quite hard against MQA critics using the usual guises of faux neutrality and "friendly" advice (to stop saying bad things about MQA).

It sure looks that way.  And now apparently even trying to defend the act of shilling.  

 

Typically, Chris’ activity on the forum is pretty light, but when a new MQA shill appears he suddenly becomes more active and the majority of his responses directed at critics.

[Brian Lucey]

If MQA was so amazing, it would EASILY and with LITTLE DEBATE inspire people to get on board.  And to pay them forever, as it would blow away all filters ... for all time !

 

It's however not amazing, we know this at the very least by the mixed reviews and resistance, often on hard science or based on credible ears.  It's not inspiring people to get on board as well as it should IF IT WAS AS GREAT AS ADVERTISED. 

 

Further, if MQA was an honorable organization they would never, ever, sell it based on "bettering" printed PCM.  That's just insanity.  Even those manufacturers on board know this is a lie.

 

 

As far as the name,  the re-brand was needed as Meridian is not making money.  Using the words "Master Quality" to raise the cred/profile of this lossy codec (deemed lossless via manipulative legal jargon in their filing papers) is the ultimate insult to those of us who deal in master quality daily.

 

Many of my records currently sold as MQA, I had nothing to do with any of them.   Draw your own conclusions about the integrity here.

[rwdvis]

13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

 

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve never understood the “don’t like it don’t buy it” mentality. It only makes sense if you’re a company who doesn’t want to grow very big, thus leaving other options available. 

 

 

The tactic is used to get critics to leave the discussion.  The hope is that the critic will respond by leaving the discussion and adopt an attitude of, “Fine, I won’t buy it.  That’ll show em.”  Thus, leaving the shill free to his task of gathering followers without interruption.  This tactic is very commonly used by Apple PR/marketing employees on Apple forum sites.

[Brian Lucey]

13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

 

The difference here between choosing between 2 types of hamburgers or 4 types cars that exist in a world of options based on features, quality, price, etc .... , is that MQA exists to eliminate the other options and dominate global music delivery.  And plants a flag in the dirt that says this idea is the best we can ever do, stop the progress, we have arrived !

 

If we have a conscience, that is alarmingly ambitious and in need of deep study. 

 

If we don't, maybe we make a quip that misses the whole point?