MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

Aah yes, the old conspiracy theory popping up again. I studied journalism myself (it's my original profession) and I do believe that the general audio journalists have enough self critique and moral insight to know the difference between what does and doesn't sound good, especially at a well regarded magazine as Stereophile.

 

Michael's claim is not about SQ in what I posted - it is about the equivalency between PCM and MQA...at least that is how I understand it - perhaps your right in that his was a SQ claim of some sort...

 

Also no "conspiracy" if I understand your use of the term, only agreement about rather something is a "good" or not. My point is that I don't really believe they are wholly ignorant about the controversial claims of MQA - just that they don't care because they want to see it succeed - they like it. They also have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer. If they were consumer oriented in attitude/outlook, they would try (alot) harder to see, understand, and discuss the "cons" of MQA (or anything like it). I admit my strong consumer oriented bias...

[sedest]

I would like to recall a few ancient audiophile concepts, it might be usefull to some of our actual industry leaders: "high fidelity", "a chain is as strong as its weakest link", "a straight wire with gain", "integrity of the original signal", "purity", "transparency".

[Vincent1234]

Michael's claim is not about SQ in what I posted - it is about the equivalency between PCM and MQA...at least that is how I understand it - perhaps your right in that his was a SQ claim of some sort...

 

Also no "conspiracy" if I understand your use of the term, only agreement about rather something is a "good" or not. My point is that I don't really believe they are wholly ignorant about the controversial claims of MQA - just that they don't care because they want to see it succeed - they like it. They also have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer. If they were consumer oriented in attitude/outlook, they would try (alot) harder to see, understand, and discuss the "cons" of MQA (or anything like it). I admit my strong consumer oriented bias...

 

You're assuming a lot about the audio press that you can't possibly know to be true.

 

- 'they just don't care because they want to see it succeed'? Proof?

- 'they have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer.' Proof? Don't they earn their money by serving the consumer and isn't that the public they are writing for?

- 'they would try (alot) harder to see, understand, and discuss the "cons" of MQA (or anything like it).' Proof? You obviously haven't read the numerous Stereophile articles on MQA.

The problem isn't that 'they' don't understand and don't want to discuss the 'cons of MQA'. The real problem is that you only believe your own 'proof'.

 

Does sound to me like you believe in a conspiracy.

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

Aah yes, the old conspiracy theory popping up again. I studied journalism myself (it's my original profession) and I do believe that the general audio journalists have enough self critique and moral insight to know the difference between what does and doesn't sound good, especially at a well regarded magazine as Stereophile.

 

When I read reviews or critiques of audio gear, I always apply this scale:

 

On one end, zealously pro-consumer and always suspicious of the ultimate motivations and trustworthiness of gear makers. On the other, utterly sycophantic of audio gear manufacturers in a way that would always accept the word of the manufacturers over independent scientists or engineers. The "ideal" reviewer is completely neutral (right in the center of these extremes).

 

I've never, ever, ever, read anything in Stereophile that wasn't on the pro-vendor side of this scale. Stereophile has a cozy relationship with vendors, period.

[new_media]

- 'they have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer.' Proof? Don't they earn their money by serving the consumer and isn't that the public they are writing for?

 

I don't know the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue was greater than subscription/sales revenue at this point.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I don't know the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue was greater than subscription/sales revenue at this point.

 

I believe this is true of all magazines and always has been.

[Vincent1234]

I don't know the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue was greater than subscription/sales revenue at this point.

 

Again a very suggestive reaction IMO. To go into the question behind what you are suggesting here:

 

This response indicates a profound lack of knowledge how proper journalism in the free world is organized. To be able to properly distinct ad revenue and the related business interest from editorial content both areas are strictly segregated and editors and ad sales people therefore report into completely separate lines of management. It's a popular misunderstanding that ad sales defines what is written in the editorial section. In practice it's bs.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

Again a very suggestive reaction IMO. To go into the question behind what you are suggesting here:

 

This response indicates a profound lack of knowledge how proper journalism in the free world is organized. To be able to properly distinct ad revenue and the related business interest from editorial content both areas are strictly segregated and editors and ad sales people therefore report into completely separate lines of management. It's a popular misunderstanding that ad sales defines what is written in the editorial section. In practice it's bs.

 

Are you able to apply this, i.e. "proper journalism in the free world" to Stereophile itself based on first hand knowledge, or are you speculating?

[Pat Case]

I believe this is true of all magazines and always has been.

 

 

Do writers and reviewers, in the audio industry, act under a code of ethics?.

[mansr]

Do writers and reviewers, in the audio industry, act under a code of ethics?.

Yes, I believe they call it "don't bite the hand that feeds."

[Vincent1234]

When I read reviews or critiques of audio gear, I always apply this scale:

 

On one end, zealously pro-consumer and always suspicious of the ultimate motivations and trustworthiness of gear makers. On the other, utterly sycophantic of audio gear manufacturers in a way that would always accept the word of the manufacturers over independent scientists or engineers. The "ideal" reviewer is completely neutral (right in the center of these extremes).

 

I've never, ever, ever, read anything in Stereophile that wasn't on the pro-vendor side of this scale. Stereophile has a cozy relationship with vendors, period.

 

It's absolutely fine to be skeptical and I do agree that most reviews probably are on the positive side of neutral. But I also read on Stereophile some pretty negative SQ reports from a recent audio show (I think it was RMAF) which included some big names too. And from a readers perspective it's not a strange thing that many much-anticipated products are being reviewed first, which often tend to be positive too. And who would like to read mostly about bad products?

 

To put things in perspective: I must confess that I have been wondering too about the very friendly photographs of Bob and the editorial team a few months ago. But to me the actual analyses they made public recently appear to me to be very sound indeed. And again, most of the slashing of MQA here is still based on private scope watching and not on actual SQ. Therefore I am patiently waiting for the MQA update from dCS. If it sounds great, I will be happy. If it doesn't, I will not shed a tear and will simply return to my other excellent sounding files and analog vinyl records (thank God, no MQA needed for those!).

 

I'm still surprised of the rancor about MQA, before it actually really started off.

But it's fine to me if you like slashing MQA and all of the audio press more than listening to music. I myself prefer the latter. [emoji4]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

Yes, I believe they call it "don't bite the hand that feeds."

BS

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

Are you able to apply this, i.e. "proper journalism in the free world" to Stereophile itself based on first hand knowledge, or are you speculating?

 

I expect they're in the 'proper journalism' category, because of their size and longstanding reputation. I didn't check with them though. Feel free to contact them, as it will be an important staple of their editorial reliability. I would be really surprised if it were not the case. If so I will take back my previous comments. [emoji4]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

Do writers and reviewers, in the audio industry, act under a code of ethics?.

 

Journalists do. See my previous post if this applies to Stereophile.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

But it's fine to me if you like slashing MQA and all of the audio press more than listening to music.

 

I expect the Meridian Explorer 2 that I ordered to show up tomorrow. I wouldn't call that "slashing" exactly. And I'm quite familiar with the pejorative "some people would rather complain than listen" mantra that exists in some quarters of audiophilia. The Hoffman forum (for example) lives on that snobbish garbage.

 

I don't need MQA. I'm investigating because it may be forced down my (and others') throats by streaming services in the future.

[Vincent1234]

I expect the Meridian Explorer 2 that I ordered to show up tomorrow. I wouldn't call that "slashing" exactly. And I'm quite familiar with the pejorative "some people would rather complain than listen" mantra that exists in some quarters of audiophilia. The Hoffman forum (for example) lives on that snobbish garbage.

 

I don't need MQA. I'm investigating because it may be forced down my (and others') throats by streaming services in the future.

 

Thank you. I also don't need MQA. But I am really curious how it SOUNDS in practice.

 

Please keep us posted on your findings.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[barrows]

Do writers and reviewers, in the audio industry, act under a code of ethics?.

 

At Stereophile writers are required to follow a set of ethical rules. Since Valin is still employed by TAS, it appears they enforce no such rules.

[Vincent1234]

At Stereophile writers are required to follow a set of ethical rules. Since Valin is still employed by TAS, it appears they enforce no such rules.

What do you mean exactly?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[barrows]

My reason to criticize MQA is because I am afraid that it may catch on. As long as other sources of hi resolution music files are available, I care not a lick about MQA, but if even a single recording which I want in a hi res version is only available in MQA, then I will be very, very upset. I think this outcome is very possible, so I will continue to try and point out the compromises which MQA makes.

[barrows]

What do you mean exactly?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

I am referring to some not so ethical stuff which was reported years ago. It does not need to be re-hashed here, i am sure if you are interested some Internet searching will find you the details.

[fung0]

After reading many long threads, it strikes me that something very important is not being said (or said clearly enough): MQA isn't wrong because it could potentially contain DRM. Or because its acoustic benefits are, at best, subtle. It's dangerous because it's proprietary.

 

This concern is obvious and undeniable. MQA attempts to replace well-accepted open data formats with a proprietary format - to replace lossless formats with a lossy one - mainly so that one company can grow rich by charging everyone a lucrative toll, forever. Presented as a total replacement for existing formats at both high- and low-end, MQA isn't simply a technical innovation. It's a cancer that becomes valuable only to the extent that it can take over the market.

 

Closed ecosystems are beneficial to the profit picture, but always anti-consumer. Open formats give consumers the control they deserve. And open formats are the only protection against a corporate ratchet effect, that slowly erodes consumer benefits. (Examples are endless. Look at UHD Blu-ray - a worthwhile evolution, in theory, it's being used to roll out always-on Internet copy-protection. But it's not just about DRM. You can't effectively embed advertising in an open format, for example. For industry, the ideal format is one that breaks when you try to edit out the ads.)

 

As consumers and music fans, we need to realize that whatever the up-front benefits of MQA, we are not the target customers. MQA lives or dies according to its acceptance by the recording and distribution industry. This handful of large companies can arbitrarily decide to make MQA the standard. They have massive long-term motivation to do so, absent any strong signs that the consuming public would rebel. In other words, we don't have to sound thrilled about MQA; all we have to do is fail to actively oppose it. The industry is just starting to realize what a wonderful thing MQA would be - for them.

 

High bitrates and low noise are all very well, but, next to the air between a musician and audience, it's open formats that present the lowest barrier to transmission.

 

Happy listening.

[new_media]

After reading many long threads, it strikes me that something very important is not being said (or said clearly enough): MQA isn't wrong because it could potentially contain DRM. Or because its acoustic benefits are, at best, subtle. It's dangerous because it's proprietary.

 

This concern is obvious and undeniable. MQA attempts to replace well-accepted open data formats with a proprietary format - to replace lossless formats with a lossy one - mainly so that one company can grow rich by charging everyone a lucrative toll, forever. Presented as a total replacement for existing formats at both high- and low-end, MQA isn't simply a technical innovation. It's a cancer that becomes valuable only to the extent that it can take over the market.

 

Closed ecosystems are beneficial to the profit picture, but always anti-consumer. Open formats give consumers the control they deserve. And open formats are the only protection against a corporate ratchet effect, that slowly erodes consumer benefits. (Examples are endless. Look at UHD Blu-ray - a worthwhile evolution, in theory, it's being used to roll out always-on Internet copy-protection. But it's not just about DRM. You can't effectively embed advertising in an open format, for example. For industry, the ideal format is one that breaks when you try to edit out the ads.)

 

As consumers and music fans, we need to realize that whatever the up-front benefits of MQA, we are not the target customers. MQA lives or dies according to its acceptance by the recording and distribution industry. This handful of large companies can arbitrarily decide to make MQA the standard. They have massive long-term motivation to do so, absent any strong signs that the consuming public would rebel. In other words, we don't have to sound thrilled about MQA; all we have to do is fail to actively oppose it. The industry is just starting to realize what a wonderful thing MQA would be - for them.

 

High bitrates and low noise are all very well, but, next to the air between a musician and audience, it's open formats that present the lowest barrier to transmission.

 

Happy listening.

 

Very well said.

[crenca]

No one is saying or implying MQA is PCM - not sure where you're getting that.

 

Bob Stuart says (in the Q & A found right here on this site):

 

"MQA audio is PCM in a world of PCM..."

 

"Yes. The MQA stream is PCM..."

 

I recall one of Bob's marketing folks saying "MQA is just PCM" with some emphasis in a video but can't recall where now. The point is that this false eqivalency is a marketing strategy - meant to ease your mind into accepting a codec that is in fact as different from your PCM as it is from DSD or MP3...

[audiventory]

High bitrates and low noise are all very well, but, next to the air between a musician and audience, it's open formats that present the lowest barrier to transmission.

 

I suppose, monopoly of one format is impossible.

 

So plurality of formats will supported as before.

[crenca]

Again a very suggestive reaction IMO. To go into the question behind what you are suggesting here:

 

This response indicates a profound lack of knowledge how proper journalism in the free world is organized. To be able to properly distinct ad revenue and the related business interest from editorial content both areas are strictly segregated and editors and ad sales people therefore report into completely separate lines of management. It's a popular misunderstanding that ad sales defines what is written in the editorial section. In practice it's bs.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

 

While I do believe the above "fire wall" is exists in practice, and even that the editors/reviewers themselves depend on it, it the case of MQA it has been irrelevant. You ask for "proof" of their anti-consumer, pro-industry bias. The only "proof" I or any other consumer has is in their behavior and writings. They simply do not care to look at MQA from any other angle excepting the industries larger business problems (see Robert Harley's "Master Quality Authenticated (MQA): The View From 30,000 Feet") or from an insular, "sound quality is the ONLY criteria to judge anything" angle perhaps best expressed by John Atkinson himself:

 

"In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world."

 

When I discussed this issue with John Atkinson himself on the Stereophile blog, he completely dismissed the idea that MQA (or something like it) has any serious ramifications for the consumer at all except sound quality.

 

Heck, I would give them their due if they had been anywhere correct about the SQ aspect but here in the real world it turns out that MQA is not the "birth of a new world" SQ wise. It is at best a modest (even important) tweak in some cases, irrelevant or worse for other recordings.

 

You can go on about "proof" (which is largly irrelavant/not valid when it comes to human motivation) all you want but the proof is in da puddin...