MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

I use Tidal to preview music before I buy it. Because I don’t hear any difference between MQA and non-MQA encoded music I would not pay a premium to listen to it. The Tidal price you are quoting is the same price I was paying before they offered MQA so there’s no hit to my wallet that I’m aware of. With one exception, I don’t pay any attention to whether a file is MQA encoded or not. The exception is that I buy the music I enjoy listening to and I’ve discovered that if an album on Tidal is MQA encoded there’s a really high probability that HD Tracks will have a high resolution, non-MQA version of it. So MQA is good for that, at least. 😬

 

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps the price would’ve been lowered, like Qobuz did, without MQA. 

 

Exactly, so why not just skip all of that MQA nonsense in the first place, pay less (for Qobuz), and arrive at the same result while simultaneously not supporting the rip off scheme.

 

You know... the "end-to-end" BS scheme that is entirely unfriendly to both artist and consumer?

[MikeyFresh]

10 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

People are just going to have to avoid Tidal and anything Warner.

Exactly, and when Warner's albums have little stream revenue to show for all of this BS, this little experiment will have failed miserably, but that does require dropping the TIDAL subscription entirely.

[MikeyFresh]

59 minutes ago, Alex McBellott said:

Just my personal opinion. 
i have subscriptions to Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon HD. I like to make direct comparisons. 
I regularly listen to music through Vinyl LPs and Sacd. 
so to say that the media is just a vehicle for music. 
Mqa, behind its technical background, has GREAT marketing. Bob Stewart is an entrepreneur and a manager and knows very well what "the industry" wants. He just took advantage of his technical and marketing skills developed at Meridian. 
This said I personally don't see , for the moment, a "big brother's watching you" situation. 
if you don't like Mqa stuff you can use Qobuz or Amazon HD. Quality is superb for both as it's hi rez Flac and Qobuz user interface is really good (Amazon HD has margins for improvements...). 
When I move from Qobuz to Tidal Mqa I don't feel I'm moving from paradise to hell: they are both great listening experiences.
And both my Tannoy Canterbury SE or Martin Logan Ethos speakers are quite revealing. 

 

 

I guess you missed the part(s) about MQA's attempt and threat of an end-to-end monopolization of the music distribution chain and how unfriendly this entire scheme is to both consumer and artist alike?  

 

Moreover, please don't gloss over the numerous details presented very recently in this thread as meaningless, your relatively low post count here makes that quite suspect.

 

The recent discussion here is one of the long ago stated goal of MQA to provide the major music labels (who have a financial interest in MQA) with a "one deliverable" approach in which not only TIDAL, but other streaming platforms will receive the same lossy/Proprietary/DRM-laden adulterated quality bullshit album tracks, thereby stifling all consumer choice on the matter while charging more and re-cornering the distribution chain.

 

Concurrent with that strategy has been a slew of baseless "MQA is better than the original master" claims, parroted by the audio press complete with an additional "3rd unfold" literally birthing new worlds. That all amounts to nothing more than lousy marketing-speak, and flat out deceptive claims and lies such is lossless quality. Then there is the abomination known as MQA-CD, which isn't Redbook Compact Disc specification at all. Please, we should be paying MP3 tier pricing for that garbage.

 

The above is a brief refresher should you or anyone else be unaware, but it hardly scratches the surface of what's already been detailed in this very thread over several year's time.

 

Are we to believe from your 4th post here that you subscribe to Qobuz, TIDAL, and Amazon HD, and truly think others don't face any threat either now or in the future from an MQA-only landscape? That is your 2 cents?

 

Why would someone subscribe to 3 paid streaming services unless they enjoy wasting money? 

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Again: this is the marketing behind Mqa. And they are good at that. 

They are not good at marketing, it's a bunch of double talk BS, fully debunked now years ago, to which they have had exactly zero substantive rebuttal. Poorly making misleading and false claims does not equal "they are god at that".

 

Does it work on someone with a simpleton understanding, or who has been lied to in a confidence game supported by the audio press and equipment manufacturers? Perhaps.

[MikeyFresh]

7 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Everybody can have a bad day and it seems this is yours. Just relax and MAYBE tomorrow can be a better one for you. 

I'm not having a bad day at all, rather nice temperatures for November here in NY, took a long walk in the park this morning. Last night was good too, a little Jack Daniel's and the Hendrix Live in Maui Blu-ray for Friday night entertainment. Not bad at all. I see right through your ploy, strike one.

 

7 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

this said... I really don't understand all your rage. Apart some personal reasons i'm not interested in. 

There's no rage, trust me, and nothing personal either, you made that up. This is about facts vs. fiction with regard to bogus claims about the supposed efficacy of MQA, and more importantly, the threat to consumers and indeed the entire music distribution system that it represents. Nice try again, but stick to the facts instead of trying to create a false representation of me or indeed this entire site. You've thus far made a pretty lame attempt.

 

7 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

I've read, in the recent years, many technical white papers about Mqa and, considering my job, I think I have enough experience to understand the business model and strategy behind this Mqa "standard". 
 

So what?

Goodie for you, I'm glad you are content with those "white papers" (did you mean Bob Stuart penned double talk?), but if your occupation truly allowed you to understand the threat to consumers and every stop in the music production and distribution chain being saddled with BS crypto-DRM, BS origami and magic filtering arrangements, BS removal of time domain "smearing", BS "correction" of all known ADC deficiencies, BS upsampling of a 44.1/48 kHz source, BS "authentication" of the artist's original intent, and last but not least BS "better than the original master" claims (better than the artist's original intent?) then you'd have to understand where we are coming from here.

 

We don't want to pay an MQA tax that allows the major record labels to provide us with inferior quality playback solely for the purpose of lining their pockets at our expense, and also at additional expense to artists who would be forced to use only certain production facilities and techniques to make music in an MQA compatible format, that too would be taxed.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

A lot of people hate Mqa. Listen to Qobuz. Listen to Amazon HD. Where's the issue?

We've explained the issue, repeatedly, but you are intentionally ignoring it. Strike two.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

But I'm also aware that it sounds good. And this is what I'm interested in. 

Did you read the McGill study? Sound like you are parroting the audio press here, with a little brand and people name dropping mixed in. You know, Bluesound, and, uh... Ken Forsythe? I have news for you, KF is a nobody, the U.S. importer of Meridian, Lee Scoggins' Atlanta area buddy, and one of the lame ass attack mongers present at CC's RMAF2018 presentation.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

The day one streaming platform decreases its quality I'll abandon it. 

Excellent, sounds like you've dropped TIDAL then. Congrats, you made the right move, lower quality at a higher price while simultaneously threatening the entire music distribution and creation process makes no sense for anyone other than MQA itself, and their partner/investors including Warner, Universal, and Sony.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Otherwise I'll continue to pay for the subscriptions as I'm doing now. Without asking for your permission...

I never suggested that you or anyone needed my permission for anything whatsoever, that's another one you just made up, a total fabrication. You just struck out.

[MikeyFresh]

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

he's angry, all right.

More fake news Andy, and you've just doubled down on Alex's attempt to paint me as angry. I'm not angry at all, and you would have absolutely no way of knowing anyway without sitting here right next to me. Not angry, but laughing, at you.

 

Whether or not you care for my writing style, or my willingness to point out facts, or my suspicion when a new member here with all of 3 total posts on the forum then launches into yet another pro-MQA "hey I don't see the problem" line of BS, while claiming to be a subscriber to three different paid streaming services... matters not. Suspicion does not equal paranoia (that's your portrayal), look it up Mr. "Journalist".

 

You work for one of the trade publications complicit in all of this nonsense, the stupid confidence game that fed this POS technology some level of acceptance and traction. I suggest you stop trying to shoot the messenger and start trying to explain how a publication purported to serve it's subscriber base could be so blatantly wrong, and unwilling to admit it to this day. You owe your readership a full retraction, based on the facts that have been presented, and never rebutted in any way, either by the trade press or MQA themselves. Until then, you lack credibility.

 

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

So these guys who are still at it here are sure happy to have you show up.

Explain why that would make someone "happy" Andy. I personally had not posted here with any regularity at all for many months, better part of a year if memory serves. So this is another misrepresentation by you, acting as if members like me wait around here dying for someone to argue with. That too is bullshit.

 

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

The thing is that Chris Connaker feels as strongly as anyone else who suspects either the technology or MQA's business model as being fraudulent, yet he manages not to foam at the mouth.

No one is foaming at the mouth, more fake news and just another lame attempt by you to sensationalize and paint the members of this forum as some sort of uncivil hoard. That whole civility thing is a weak hand to play, but I guess it's all you've got, based on never having any credible rebuttal or interesting insight into the actual facts and issues surrounding the consumer and systemic threat that is MQA.

 

I for one take umbrage with your high-brow approach here, as if you are on some other lofty level and from time to time need to arbitrate that this is really a civility issue. Thats a deflect and you know it, why not discuss the real issues at hand rather than try to change the subject? Because you have nothing, that's why, so you keep returning to the same playbook hoping it can take on new life. Go ahead, complain to Chris about civility, whimper on, and then notice how my tone changes not at all.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

34 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I would point out that the anti MQAers here have been right about a few things in their predictions. The fact that Warners is now removing their non MQA catalogue from Tidal being one.

Well said, these are the recent developments being completely ignored by both the new member here, and Andy too in his most recent attempt at a deflect.

 

35 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Frankly, I have more than enough quality music to last me a lifetime

So do I, and if this MQA crap is force fed to Qobuz, I'll drop that subscription in a heartbeat.

 

36 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

The push to MQA only will just increase the sharing of the non MQA stuff among those that care and cut into Warner’s and others bottom line

This is true, and as pointed out by Chris, another example of the labels being their own worst enemy at times. Driven by greed rather than sheer stupidity however.

 

38 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have no time for streaming anyway as the artist only gets screwed. I have personal experience with this. I would rather the artist get my money.

Also true, and in its current form, unsustainable.

[MikeyFresh]

13 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

My point is that Alex, the newbie, came to the discussion as an innocent and didn't deserve to be savaged. He evidently agrees with your suggestion that those of his sort not come back.

I just re-read my response to "Alex", and he was not savaged in any way, nor was it an uncivil response.

 

I said "I guess you missed the part about...", and "please don't gloss over..." I then asked him 3 questions at the end of my post, so a perfect chance at the dialog you said he was seeking.

 

Where is the "savaging" there ARQ?

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

No, you were just plain bloody rude

In my post that precedes yours, I stated there was no "savaging" as ARQ had put it, and I stand by that.

 

As for your take that I was "plain bloody rude", you are of course entitled to that opinion, and I know it's not worth any time asking you to be more specific about which part of my post was rude, so I'll drop it except to say refer to my post above, I link to the original reply, and tell me where this plain bloody rudeness is Alex.

 

I believe you are jumping to the defense of ARQ, and or playing the civility card once again more than anything else. I will agree to disagree there as that's your opinion.

[MikeyFresh]

7 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

He definitely sensed an angry tone, as I noted before - even if you know you were more exasperated than angry. No, you personally didn't savage the poster—but it  did seem he was being ganged up on. Now, as I just noted in a response to K.O. if the poster actually did know what Vaporware has been about for the last 4 years...well, he should have known what he was getting in for. Trolling is trolling.

If "I guess you missed the part about...", and " please don't gloss over..." followed by 3 questions posed in my response to newbie Alex constitutes an angry tone, then I guess I need finishing school or something.

 

Thank you for confirming that I didn't actually savage poor Alex, I don't think any other members here did either.

 

Please accept my apology if my responses to you constitute a savaging as SandyK has indicated, he's rushed to your defense and accused me of being in violation of site rules! Congrats then, another successful swoop in drive-by in order to deflect and change the narrative to civility or lack thereof. 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

12 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

So you are just projecting things onto me.  Like when you suggested that I was Brinkmanship and should be banned.

How civil.

I remember that, but I never understood at all where that accusation came from.

 

7 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Now that we've been diverted to this extent, do you think Warner is going to try and force the other streaming services to go MQA?

Yes, although unclear if they will just do it by quietly shifting to the one deliverable that being MQA, or if they will force feed it more overtly.

[MikeyFresh]

12 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I was just re-reading the 11/12/2020 articles on Forbes.  Seems like a MQA press release. You would think that Forbes would be a little more in depth and their "reporters" would be capable of critical analysis.  Seemed like a puff piece.

The Senior Contributor author of that, and several other previous pieces on Forbes regarding MQA going back to June 2018, seems to make him look a bit like a fan boy as I read it.

 

Certainly no attempt at telling the full story there, perhaps he's just not aware of the full story.

 

He's followed up that Nov. 12 piece with a Nov. 19 mini review of the MQA dongle by Helm Audio.

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s quite the narrative, without regard for facts. 

That's a very polite and courteous way of calling bullshit there Chris, you've taken the high road.

 

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

In my experience, companies with great products want all the press they can get. Companies with something to hide, want to pick and choose which outlets they talk to. 

Without question this is the way it works, and so this speaks volumes about MQA on TIDAL.

[MikeyFresh]

12 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

24/376? Huh?

Yes but only with an MQA hardware decoder performing exactly 3.5 unfolds, it's the only way to get that special proprietary sample rate, and an authentic rendering of what the artist intended.

 

There's additional de-blurring as well, such that you are hearing it as if in the vacuum of space, with no atmosphere to smear the time domain at all.

 

There's more to MQA than you think... COMING SOON: a 4th Unfold reveals an alternate universe, and it's Lossless!

[MikeyFresh]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

Hey, only 2 bits, rather than 3 were used - but who's counting ... 🙂.

Evidently, Frank was told there would be no math.

[MikeyFresh]

12 hours ago, FredericV said:

No word about batch encoded albums ... a big taboo?
 

 
 

 

Terrible "interview", a total crock of BS being spewed there. Shame on both Tidal themselves and to the "interviewer" as well for giving MQA an infomercial.

[MikeyFresh]

45 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Why boycott just Warner?  What about Sony and Universal?

I believe because so far only Warner Music Group has had the unmitigated gall to force feed Master Quality Adulterated/Approximated in lieu of previously supplied 16-bit Redbook albums onto a streaming service. I pity the TIDAL subscribers now forced to gag or upchuck (vomit).

 

If one had to guess which label might be next, that would likely be Universal, because they too, just like Warner, are part owned by greedy private equity. Lawyers and accountants reign, along with the Chinese conglomerate Tencent.

 

Sony Music would seem a likely distant 3rd in that race to the bottom, however they too own a stake in MQA, and are thus likely to follow suit if they perceive any semblance of market acceptance.

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, daverich4 said:

Do you actually know that none of the studios are archiving in MQA or does it just seem logical that they aren’t?

One might also ask, do you actually know that they are, or does it seem logical that they are?

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Was this guy the male cheerleader in high school?

I wonder if he realizes what a pathetic fanboy he is, or does he actually fancy himself some sort of authority on digital audio, complete with Facebook "followers"?

[MikeyFresh]

5 hours ago, R1200CL said:

It will be interesting to see how they handle Bob Dylan catalog. At the moment it’s not MQA.

Warner has nothing to do with Bob Dylan. The recent news surrounding his catalog being sold to Universal Music has exactly nothing to do with the recorded albums. Universal bought the rights to the publishing, i.e. the compositions themselves. So while you could now see a lot more Bob Dylan songs used in commercials, TV, and movies, that announcement has no bearing on the recorded albums or how those are released, that continues to be co-owned by Sony/Columbia Records and Bob Dylan. 

[MikeyFresh]

13 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

I’m trying to debate more on a technical base, not so much about feelings.

But it's been stated and proven over literally years time that there is no technical debate, if there were then BS and others representing MQA would have already answered questions and gladly presented their side of the story to prove their scheme's efficacy.

 

But the scheme has no technical efficacy, and your proof lies in the fact MQA have never produced any rebuttal whatsoever to the debunking that took place here and elsewhere now years ago. They have nothing.

 

So you keep trying to suggest there is some kind of technical debate to be had when we know there isn't, and all you cite in trying to create a technical debate is MQA's bullshit marketing speak, which has been demonstrated to be false. This is why some here might be growing tired of your posts, because all you do is cite their marketing speak which is not worthy of any further debate.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

MQA began as a way to identify and archive what makes hi-res music sound better.

No it didn't, and now you too are citing MQA marketing speak as facts. 

 

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

Based on research which showed that humans are much more sensitive to the time domain than our frequency domain acuity would otherwise suggest, Stuart theorized that it wasn't all the noise in hi-res sound, nor the high frequency information we can't discern, but rather the time-domain resolution is what we're actually picking up on.

Oh here we go again, temporal blurring  shall we?

 

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

However, what we CAN verify is that MQA has the capacity to sound significantly better than standard resolution audio if you use a a decent MQA-compatible DAC

We can't, not anecdotally, nor by means of reviewing the McGill study for example. 

 

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

Not all albums mind you, I've heard plenty which seem to sound no better, but there are those which are clearly, significantly, obviously better.

Those few that received a special new mastering, perhaps the white glove treatment? Don't bother answering, clearly you've chosen to ignore that aspect entirely despite it having been stated here a million times. A broken record.

 

Even in the cases that you think illustrate your point, isn't that just a subjective opinion vs. any real or broad confirmation, and quite possibly just different as opposed to "clearly, significantly, obviously better" ? 

 

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

Frankly they can be much better than any 88 kHz track I've ever heard.

How many releases do you have in 88.2kHz, a handful? Or are you speaking of upsampling?

[MikeyFresh]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

1. If the stated purpose isn't correct, than what was the real purpose? How did you determine it?

You skipped right past the part about your "stated purpose" is just you parroting MQA marketing speak, didn't you. 

 

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

2. I don't know what temporal blurring is.

Really? You seem so well versed in BS-speak, I can't imagine that one wouldn't have entered your vocabulary by now. Here's a good refresher on it, but not presented by BS of course:

 

MUSINGS/MEASUREMENTS: On "blurring" and why MQA probably worsens transient smearing.

 

TL : DR? That time domain bullshit you are trying to parrot is also old news, and the response to it was never rebutted in any way by his Royal Highness BS, nor the rest of the MQA cadre. 

 

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

3. I'm not familiar with the "McGill study"

You might wish to familiarize yourself with it.

 

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I have verified through my own testing using Tidal, MQA-CDs and downloaded MQA albums that MQA has the potential to sound better.

Sounds very sophisticated.

 

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

There's no reason to believe that MQA was mastered any differently than the stereo PCM version.

No? Did you read the posts earlier about a great deal on a bridge for sale? It even generates toll revenue for the owner.

[MikeyFresh]

31 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I got a MQA-CD sampler from CDJapan which includes the CD version of the same MQA-CD tracks for comparison purposes.

You bought an MQA-CD player? Thats hysterically funny. Congrats on that, you've joined a worldwide sample size of what, 5-10 other people? Cutting edge I suppose, does it have a blue light to comfort you with a level of authentication hitherto unknown?

 

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

43 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Finally I got a Myek Liberty which unlike most MQA DACs can do the decoding on all inputs allowing the use of MQA-CD. I still have the Liberty today and it's hooked up to my headphone system.

Cutting edge I suppose, does it have a blue light to comfort you with a level of authentication hitherto unknown?

 

Have your listening trials confirmed this is exactly what the artist (or perhaps the "studio") originally intended, and that's been officially "authenticated" in association with the record label, who have carefully and accurately conveyed the spirit of the original master recording to both TIDAL and/or some wide ranging  examples of MQA-CD?

 

In what percentage of albums have MQA confirmed or "authenticated" anything at all with the recording artist, or even the original recording engineer or mastering engineer, versus used an unknown source of unknown provenance for batch encoding in the cloud as the esteemed LS one proudly described here? This might also be considered as so-called white glove vs. hamburger batch encoding.

 

In what percentage of cases have the record labels used a legal/contractual language that in many instances is decades old, to pretend to be the defacto final arbiter of what particular source or mastering or proprietary distribution format such as MQA is "what the artist or studio intended" and how have the said artists and studios actually been compensated for this new amazing quality streaming distribution of their material? Same old lame rip-off contract with the artists that there ever was?