Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mansr said:

FLAC already does that just fine. The sole purpose of MQA is to extract revenue for Bob Stuart at every stage of music handling, from recording studio to playback device. The labels jumped on board since MQA lets them claim to be providing "master quality" music while simultaneously keeping their "crown jewels" safely under lock and key. Quite the magic trick, if it were true. Of course, when we reversed engineered the format, we found that it was mostly fake. As magic tricks tend to be.

 

Whatever gave you that idea?

 

Guess we will have to disagree on this one.  I don’t have a dog in the Bob Stuart hunt going on. Indeed, I think the man just fell in with bad company. 

 

IRT FLAC, other than a few high end companies, have you seen any digitally distributed master recordings from traditional record companies? If not, then FLAC is technically capable of distributing master recordings, but it ain’t happening. So is AIFF, WAV, ALAC, and a few other formats. Why is such distribution not happening? Is it a technical fault in the formats? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul R said:

Well, I think I would trust Bob Stuart with pretty much any audio subject, as the man is brilliant technically, and has shown that in the audio world time and time again since the 1970's. That's a long track record of achievement, and MQA did not fail in a technical sense, but rather in implementation and marketing. Technically, it has the potential to provide better sound. It also has the potential to lock people into an unpleasant situation with non-MQA music files. 

 

Honestly? I don't know who you are, or what possible motivation you could have to be attacking Bob Stuart with what appears to be such anger. Stuart is, and pretty much always has been, one of the good guys. Sounds like some kind of personal agenda just from what you wrote above.  I haven't been very active on the system for the past year or so, so I might have missed when you introduced yourself. 

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

This deserves a Luke Skywalker "Amazing. Every word you just said was wrong." reaction.

 

It is instructive however in how myopic and introverted the old guard (of all levels - publishing, hobbyists, etc.) is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Guess we will have to disagree on this one.  I don’t have a dog in the Bob Stuart hunt going on. Indeed, I think the man just fell in with bad company

 

 

 

No no, he was a bad seed - his parents did it to him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Paul if Bob Stuart approached anyone in The Silicon Beach (LA), Silicon Valley (Bay Area), The Silicon Forrest (Portland Oregon) or the Puget Sound area with MQA they would and have shown him the door. Meridian’s losses are large enough to overcome any argument you can make about Bob’s technical brilliance.  Simple due diligence really.

 

When the studio guys were approached sound quality was not talked about. They were the ones initially found that it altered the sound. Something I’ve talked with Bob Stuart about.

 

MQA is bad for artists, recoding engineers, mastering engineers and consumers. No evidence has been shown me that MQA can sound better. If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence to the contrary that we haven’t already shown to be untrue and without merit. No anger there and I would calculate that it probable (greater than a 75% chance) I have better information than you do.

 

I wondered who would be the first to play you are angry card in 2019. You win but you should know everyone who tried in 2017 and 2018 failed. An angry Rt66indierock never survives any face to face conversation.

 

 

So, who are you? I am not terribly impressed with the apparent anger and one sided arguments you make, but honestly  - who cares? I seriously doubt Bob is reading this and breaking out in a cold sweat over your postings or mine, or anyone else’s. (Maybe Chris’....) 

 

If MQA is a sore spot for you, that’s cool. Share your gripes. 

 

But honestly, most people are here to have a bit of fun, conversation, and enjoy each other’s virtual company. MQA nor anyone involved with it is out there killing babies, and as far as I know there are not even any Klingon Puppies involved... besides which, I doubt the situation is completely as you present it. Obvious prejudice showing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

This deserves a Luke Skywalker "Amazing. Every word you just said was wrong." reaction.

 

It is instructive however in how myopic and introverted the old guard (of all levels - publishing, hobbyists, etc.) is.

 

Watch it with those “old”  cracks  kiddo! I got a virtual cane around here somewhere... 🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

MQA nor anyone involved with it is out there killing babies

They just want to kill distribution of anything but MQA.  So no more FLAC high res.  Are you OK with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rickca said:

They just want to kill distribution of anything but MQA.  So no more FLAC high res.  Are you OK with that?

 

Let me ask you a question back - were record companies and the RIAA able to kill digital downloads? Stop Peer 2 Peer file sharing? Hi Res downloads? Apple Music? They spent millions trying to kill each of those...

 

Why do you think MQA can do this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s the thing. MQA Ltd delivered the tool to the labels. 

 

Hi Chris - the labels have tried to cripple every innovation for at least the past 40 years or so, from CDs to Downloads. Their number one tool is usually taking some technology and using it for copy protection. They use those failures as the reason to not release the master recordings at the highest resolutions. Who would buy their back catalog on the newest gee whiz media if they did? :)

 

Never has worked out that well for them, and I don’t think it ever will. Tech moves too quickly these days, and anything that 1. Prevents easy online distribution or to a lesser extent, degrades the audio, is fought persistently, and eventually successfully when tech catches up. 

 

I do do not personally see a reason to assume this latest attempt with MQA will succeed either, but I do believe that MQA technology could deliver master tape quality sound. I do not believe it will be allowed to however. 

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Incorrect, it is happening. Most legal high resolution downloads (24-bit PCM FLAC and DSD) are NOT from audiophile or boutique labels but from the major labels (Warner Bros., Universal and Sony) at HDtracks and Superhirez.

 

Most audiophile labels are only available in hi-res as SACDs as they don't do hi-res downloads.

 

:nomqa:

 

Hi Teresa - I am be wrong, but I do not think those hi-Rez releases are at the same quality as the actual masters. At least not the vast majority of the ones from the major labels. 

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Paul, I’m the person who started this thread. Love the who cares part, can’t think of a weaker comeback when if you had been following this thread you would know who cares. The Grammy people distributed the original post “MQA is Vaporware.” You would also know that Bob Stuart and Ken Forsythe did try and get Chris to shut the thread down. And Chris told me the thread is or was causing heartburn in the industry even among those who oppose MQA.

 

Yes, my prejudice is showing, I’ve worked with MQA in studio environments. It doesn’t work as you think it does. Artists cash flow will not improve with MQA so why bother? And I’ve been stunned by the damage MQA can do when tracks are processed.

 

Finally, I’ve shared my gripes and encouraged other to share theirs that’s what the MQA discussion is about on Audiophile Style. You want pro MQA stuff read Stereophile and The Absolute Sound.

 

Lot of talk, no name or verifiable record. You may have the experience you say you do, but you can also just be a disgruntled journalist. You also gripe a lot all over the internet. 

 

Tell you what, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt seriously you understand the tech, or understand How it is purposely crippled, or even why. As for reading Stereophile, well, let’s just say some of the folks there disagree with you, and while I often disagree with some of their thinking, I still respect most of their opinions. Certainly Atkinson and a few others. 

 

You might take the time to read the original paper on the subject, as well as some of the publicly available follow up material. I believe it is open access now from the AES-E library. Would be paper number 9178 from October of 2014. The capability of the technology to work with hi res recordings has been proven and documented by multiple people over. 

 

Because the crap we see today is crap, the problem is not with the technology, but with how it was implemented in a particular way, and more importantly why. And of course, the issue of combatting the labels never ending battle to get us to pay yet again for more crap. 

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Your belief is just that - a belief  - one that flies in the face of all available facts known (i.e. proved by the reverse engineering and disambiguation done here) about MQA.  To build upon this belief a conspiracy is a  self_fulfilling_prophecy.  Whatever floats your boat 😉

 

The truth of MQA is much more banal:  It is a lossy/compression scheme (a super mp3) brought to market too late for any actual consumer benefit, and from the beginning was meant to protect the "crown jewels" through technical and legal means (DRM).  

 

Sigh - no it is an informed belief, based upon signifigant study - just as you believe your thinking to be. 

But I have no desire to fight over this, so believe as you will. I am out of the discussion at this point. 

 

 

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Let me ask you a question back - were record companies and the RIAA able to kill digital downloads? Stop Peer 2 Peer file sharing? Hi Res downloads? Apple Music? They spent millions trying to kill each of those...

 

Why do you think MQA can do this?

 

Because MQA pitched itself to the labels as a way to supposedly market "master" recordings, yet still protect the "crown jewels" (aka that actual masters, that arent' in MQA format) from reaching the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Danny - maybe so. I just find it difficult to believe that releases are mastered in 24/48k or even 24/96. I expect DXD 

, DSD, or at least 24/192. 🤪 

 

Also,  while you will find I have never been in favor of MQA, because I don’t agree with hidden DRM, I see noreason why the tech is limited to 17/96 except for implementation choices. An implementation could be written to use whatever bit depth and sample rate one chooses. It is only software, not a law of nature.

 

YMMV

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×