MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

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?

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.

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.

 

Give me a break. 

 

You’re viewing this from such a negative angle. What’s wrong with my responses to some critics? Telling one critic that I don’t disagree with his message, just his delivery, is a bad thing?

 

Please present facts that I’ve responded to critics in some pro-MQA fashion when a new MQA shill appears. 

[synn]

I think people are taking what I said in a completely unintended way.

 

i am proudly pro-good old PCM. I don’t care about MQA and I don’t care too much about DSD either.

 

as a consumer, what I can do to stop MQA from becoming dominant is not buy anything that has MQA’s fingerprints on it, be it songs or hardware. Let it die a slow agonizing death.

 

people in the industry of course have more weapons in their arsenal.

[rwdvis]

34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Give me a break. 

 

You’re viewing this from such a negative angle. What’s wrong with my responses to some critics? Telling one critic that I don’t disagree with his message, just his delivery, is a bad thing?

 

Please present facts that I’ve responded to critics in some pro-MQA fashion when a new MQA shill appears. 

I didn’t say you responded in a pro-MQA fashion.  The following post is most accurate.

15 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).

And, it's not just this one critic, as you say.  You've acted the same in the past.  Just my observation.

[labjr]

15 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I basically agree with this, but I think it unpacks a little more.  Ultimately, the record companies, not the artists, are The Source (apologies to LRH ), so MQA is really saying "True To The Record Companies".  When viewed through this lens, MQA's story isn't quite so disingenuous.  "Master Quality" is what the record companies want you to hear, without regard for the artists' wishes.  As Spencer Chrislu from MQA has stated, "naked" high resolution PCM files are the record companies' crown jewels and should not be directly accessible by consumers.

What Spencer Chrislu says is nothing but marketing BS. He also states that MQA improves the sound. So why would we need the "crown jewels" if MQA is better?

[labjr]

15 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

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

Because at some point we may not have a choice if MQA becomes the only delivery method. Certainly, MQA survival probably depends on that.

[rwdvis]

18 minutes ago, synn said:

I think people are taking what I said in a completely unintended way.

 

i am proudly pro-good old PCM. I don’t care about MQA and I don’t care too much about DSD either.

 

as a consumer, what I can do to stop MQA from becoming dominant is not buy anything that has MQA’s fingerprints on it, be it songs or hardware. Let it die a slow agonizing death.

 

people in the industry of course have more weapons in their arsenal.

The important point you seem to be missing is that some day you might not have that choice.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, rwdvis said:

The important point you seem to be missing is that some day you might not have that choice.

You may be surprised to learn that people around here are actually pretty smart. I'm willing to bet @synn has considered the point you believe he missed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, labjr said:

What Spencer Chrislu says is nothing but marketing BS. He also states that MQA improves the sound. So why would we need the "crown jewels" if MQA is better?

This also raises the question, why would the labels keep an inferior version of the crown jewels and release something better to the public?

 

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This also raises the question, why would the labels keep an inferior version of the crown jewels and release something better to the public?

 

Hi,

I believe that money is the driver. As per Brian Lucey - each release is an artistic impression, and remasters are essentially a con - to take money from everyone.

As others have stated - MQA V2 may be next as we progress, and the patents near the end of their time, or to create a rolling, never ending upgrade.

Dolby are always coming up with the next best thing - locked in system, and to get the latest and greatest, we need the next version, which is even better. (new recordings, new hardware - DRM possibly - everyone wins..... except the customer)

 

This reminds me of a speaker manufacturer - they claim the newest version excels, and on the forum, people people state, ok, but i was going to buy the cheapest, so are they not very good - the response is no, they are the best, but the newer ones are even better.

MQA is the same, anything will be said to sell the current version, or the next version, whist still claiming the previous is still the best....

 

Without sites like this, and the contribution from experts in the field - people will be hoodwinked so easily, since they do not understand the detail.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

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.

 

This is the point I've been trying to make.  "Master Quality", as MQA uses the term, means, "what the record companies want you to buy/stream".

 

High Definition in TVs has been around for more than a decade now.  There has not been a concerted effort for the music industry to follow suit, mostly because the consumption model for pop music is quite different than for video.  HDTracks content is an outlier, something that only a very small percentage of consumers know how to deal with.  MQA uses FUD with the record companies to convince them that A) HD in music is a potential money maker and B) there must be some DRM in the mix that protects this HD content.  They probably use the absence of something like HDCP for audio  as an example of how exposed the music business is.

 

The trend for audio downloads has been downward for some time now.  It makes sense for the same to be true for HD audio downloads.  Based on the number of spam emails I get from HDTracks every week, it seems clear they're feeling this as well.  Streaming is the future, period.  MQA wants to own it, even at Redbook resolution.  Recent growth in vinyl has plateaued, and a downward trend is inevitable.  It was a millennial-driven phenomenon/fad that is now fading.

 

The promise of "better than PCM" is supposed to bring audiophiles on board with MQA.  Those who work with the input material to the MQA process know the truth, and the truth does not portend well for people who value audio fidelity.

 

 

[synn]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

 

 

This reminds me of a speaker manufacturer - they claim the newest version excels, and on the forum, people people state, ok, but i was going to buy the cheapest, so are they not very good - the response is no, they are the best, but the newer ones are even better.

MQA is the same, anything will be said to sell the current version, or the next version, whist still claiming the previous is still the best....

 

 

B&W?

 

i agree about the Dolby-ness of remasters btw. It is also like the never ending cycle of “reboots” that is plaguing Hollywood. 

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

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?

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

 

No, but this rhetoric is disingenuous (or naive, or simply ignorant - no offense intended as I am using those terms technically and not as a judgement on your character).  

 

As you admit you are not up to speed.  Have you read Robert Harley's TAS article "MQA:  the view from 30,000 feet"?  In it Robert (TAS editor and unabashed MQA supporter) outlines the real market, business, cultural, etc. reasons behind MQA.  It is not about SQ or choice, it is about control and consumer management which is what DRM is (as in Digital Rights Management).  

 

The idea that MQA is simply trying to be a choice among choice is silly given what it is (an IP protected format) and how it fits into our digital ecosystems...

[labjr]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

 

I'm not sure either. But do you think MQA would like to be the only game in town? I do. And I think they're trying everything to make that happen. I'm sure labels would love to distribute one format only. If the whole distribution model changes before everyone realizes it's not as good as they say it is, then they may no go back to the old system because audiophile market isn't that large. To me, this isn't one of those things where you say "Give it a chance, you may like it" Personally, I don't care if it is better. There's plenty of other brilliant digital designers that aren't trying to corner the market. 

[Lee Scoggins]

44 minutes ago, labjr said:

 

I'm not sure either. But do you think MQA would like to be the only game in town? I do. And I think they're trying everything to make that happen. I'm sure labels would love to distribute one format only. If the whole distribution model changes before everyone realizes it's not as good as they say it is, then they may no go back to the old system because audiophile market isn't that large. To me, this isn't one of those things where you say "Give it a chance, you may like it" Personally, I don't care if it is better. There's plenty of other brilliant digital designers that aren't trying to corner the market. 

 

I think in the best scenario, MQA becomes a niche format.  I have not seen any evidence that Bob Stuart and team are "trying to corner the market."

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think in the best scenario, MQA becomes a niche format.  I have not seen any evidence that Bob Stuart and team are "trying to corner the market."

Well if you look for that evidence, you probably don't even have to walk around the corner to find it. 

[Lee Scoggins]

21 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. 

 

 

 

I'm using this language more in the sense of no one is forcing one to buy MQA, at least as far as I can tell.  However, it seems some here believe that is the case.

[synn]

The MQA invasion is looking more and more like the DSD invasion from a while ago... 

 

The sky isn’t falling any time soon on PCM. 

IMO of course.

[Brian Lucey]

40 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think in the best scenario, MQA becomes a niche format.  I have not seen any evidence that Bob Stuart and team are "trying to corner the market."

 

Bob told me, in a room of 100 people, that is the aim. 

 

It's so obviously the business plan, why are so many corporate people on board?  Why is there the budget and investment?

 

DRM with MQA is huge money for everyone, in perpetuity

 

WAKE UP FRIEND !

[Brian Lucey]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

 

So in your mind there are 3 formats?
 

MQA - the new standard

HI RES - I'm assuming you mean a high sample rate?

Vinyl.

 

Let's break this thought down:

 

1. Hi Res = 24 bits.   Period.  There is nothing better about 96 or 192, that's a marketing myth.   The PHYSICAL CONVERTER and the PROCESSING are the quality of the result.  The "best quality" is the sample rate from the mastering session.   Higher humbers are just an easy way for lazy people to measure quality and for greedy people to take your money and perpetuate this myth of more samples= better.

 

Filtering, analog stages, clocking.   These are everything.   44.1 in a great AD kills 96k in a lesser AD.

 

2. MQA as the new standard ... is VERY dangerous.  It's a lossy format.

[synn]

Unless MQA enabled devices become the majority of the playback devices out there, I don’t foresee a situation where labels stop releasing normal FLAC files. 

 

which platform sells the most music currently? I believe it’s iTunes. And there are no indications that Apple wants to go anywhere near MQA. IF they do, THEN there’s a good chance that MQA becomes the norm. The chances of which are very slim indeed.

[labjr]

2 minutes ago, synn said:

Unless MQA enabled devices become the majority of the playback devices out there, I don’t foresee a situation where labels stop releasing normal FLAC files. 

 

which platform sells the most music currently? I believe it’s iTunes. And there are no indications that Apple wants to go anywhere near MQA. IF they do, THEN there’s a good chance that MQA becomes the norm. The chances of which are very slim indeed.

 

Part of their marketing spiel is that  MQA sounds better even undecoded. Why do you think that is?  

[#Yoda#]

3 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

 Maybe, I'm observing the HiRes download market for some years now. After a very sluggish start with facile first trials of the labels and several simple upsamples from redbook masters, the market gained momentum in 2015, maybe partially forced by the publicity of Neil Youngs Pono Kickstarter campaign. Gradually more and more new albums has been released in 24/88.2 or better resolutions.

Since MQA is available on Tidal and as download primarily at onkyomusic.com there is a significant change noticeable in the usual and average resolution in HiRes downloads. Today, the very most new albums, primarily in the top-selling Pop/Rock genre, but others as well, are released only in 24/44.1 or 24/48, the minimal requirements for HiRes music and not nearly in the real master quality. Simply a coincidence? 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, #Yoda# said:

Today, the very most new albums, primarily in the top-selling Pop/Rock genre, but others as well, are released only in 24/44.1 or 24/48, the minimal requirements for HiRes music and not nearly in the real master quality.

Most modern music is mastered at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

[synn]

10 minutes ago, labjr said:

 

Part of their marketing spiel is that  MQA sounds better even undecoded. Why do you think that is?  

 Sure, but it’s not really equating to market traction.

 

i had mentioned in a previous post how MQA is still a no name over here in Germany.