MQA is Vaporware

[Paul R]

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?

 

[crenca]

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.

[crenca]

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...

[Paul R]

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. 

[Paul R]

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... 🤪

[rickca]

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?

[Paul R]

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?

 

[rickca]

7 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Why do you think MQA can do this?

Not MQA, the labels.  You don't think the labels can say the sole authorized distribution format is MQA?

Why do you think the majors all adopted MQA?  And why do you say MQA implementation was intentionally crippled?

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

[Teresa]

39 minutes ago, Paul R said:

...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?

 

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.

 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

 

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. 

 

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.

[Paul R]

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

[Paul R]

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.

 

 

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

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

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. 

 

 

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).  

[Paul R]

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

[R1200CL]

I haven’t read this tread, but maybe someone find this article interesting. 

 

http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-xxp0l--jfchx-5q8j86o9

[Paul R]

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. 

 

 

 

    

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

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. 

 

 

That's good because you did not actually add anything to the discussion.  You accused the OP of falsifying his credentials and being "disgruntled".  You made fantastical claims about MQA technically without a shred of supporting argument, let alone actual evidence - all in the face of actual evidence found many places on this very website.  It appears the only thing you are informed of is your own "beliefs"...  

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Exactly.  

No, not exactly. That's not crippling, and certainly not by outsiders. That's how it's designed and intended to work. 17/96 resolution max.

[firedog]

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.

[firedog]

54 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

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

 

I think in very many cases you are wrong.

[Paul R]

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

[ARQuint]

7 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

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.

 

Let's note what Paul and so many others have observed over the past two years on this thread., It's not a "discussion" if only one point of view is welcome and persons with another opinion are assailed and then advised to go elsewhere.

[SilvesterH]

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Let's note what Paul and so many others have observed over the past two years on this thread., It's not a "discussion" if only one point of view is welcome and persons with another opinion are assailed and then advised to go elsewhere.

 

Although I agree with many of Paul's points I do have to, at least partially, disagree with you.

Let's not forget that many contributors in this thread raised legitimate questions, technical, legal, etc., and the main defenders of MQA had usually chosen not to answer those questions in a honest and comprehensive way.  

They elected primarily to avoid sensitive topics and drive the discussion on a convenient path to their narrative.

I`m a practicing lawyer so I can understand fully this approach. Nevertheless it wont make it honest or productive.     

To get back to the subject, IMHO any discussion may take place only if the MQA people start to really address the many valid issues raised by Chris, Mansr, Miska and others.

[Shadders]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

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. 

Hi,

The AES paper has serious errors. As pointed out by another poster, it states on page 11 that the MQA filters cause less dispersion, but the actual impulse response shows the pulse is broadened - Figure 14 top figure. An own goal by MQA.

 

There is no proof in this document - it is a collection of inferences, a mixture of pseudo technical studies leading the reader to believe it solves a problem that does not exist.

 

The MQA claims are mostly false - read this thread - all the answers are here.

 

Throughout the past 40 years we have had campaigns by the music industry to make themselves richer. In the UK in the 80's - home taping is killing music. The analogue copy protection schemes for vinyl. CD has a copy bit - easily defeated.

 

I do not see artists living in state provided housing - they all have fast cars and big houses - as do the music industry executives. They are just intensely greedy. And MQA provides a route for them to make more money.

 

The MQA talk of letting people hear the master yet never getting the master - who cares ?. Normal people do not care about high resolution music. When people bought CD's - it was claimed that the music industry gave away the master - no one cares at all about this. It is just clear music - no pops, cracks, hiss, etc as per vinyl.

 

It is all in the music industry executives heads. The normal people of this world really don't care about masters, or crown jewels. It is just the intense avarice of the music industry wanting more, and more , and more etc.

 

This greed has skewed the thinking of the people at the top. They believe that we are all gleefully happy with owning CD or high resolution masters of albums - and in some way, we have defrauded them out of something. We haven't - we just listen to music.

 

If MQA does become the de facto standard - then as per previous events, people will either break the system, or copy the data to the DAC (I2S stream) and record, and as per previous Napster pirating/copying - people will be pushed to this type of behaviour, should the control be too excessive.

 

So, assume that people have broken the MQA system - and record the data to the DAC IC. They are now able to play that file anywhere, on any DAC, or player they choose.

 

So what are the music industry executives going to do ? Nothing that they can do. The only perceived win is that they know that the reconstituted file (MQA) is not the master and they have thwarted the criminals of getting hold of the master, despite the claim that MQA is the master (subjective listening).

 

MQA Ltd are happy - they have inserted themselves in every part of the audio chain - and get paid for it. The music industry will not be any richer - and i expect independent labels will surge ahead as they don't buy into the crap of MQA.

 

Regards,

Shadders.