MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

40 minutes ago, botrytis said:

NO - the critics already have proven that MQA is a house of cards. It is up to MQA to prove that it is not.

 

I agree. The ball is in MQA's court.

[lucretius]

31 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Of course what it sounds like matters. How MQA sounds is arguably the only thing that does matter actually.

 

It is the nail in coffin.

 

MQA is already at the undertaker's door.

[lucretius]

22 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Did MIT have to prove to you their cables sound great? With all the technical arguments and compelling scientific evidence against it? Or did you simply listen and decide for yourself? The question is of course rhetorical, I have no doubt you listened to the cables and decided for yourself.

 

The question should be rhetorical.  With terminology such as 'articulation pole', 'poles of articulation' ('multipoles'), 'filterpoles'  and statements such as this:

 

"MIT Cables’ core audio cable technology is our exclusive Poles of Articulation (Multipole), named after the fact that every audio cable has a single point where it is most efficient at storing and transporting energy. At this point in the audio frequency spectrum, the cable will articulate best, and represents the cables’ particular Articulation Pole."

 

"The Oracle MA-X is the new industry standard, raising the bar to an unsurpassed 68 poles of articulation."

 

"F.A.T. technology gives the listener the ability to tune up (or down) the number of Poles."

 

Why would anyone have to or need to provide an answer to your question?

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

(Grin) One does not usually nail a coffin shut unless the deceased is already in it. 😇

 

MQA may be buried alive on the mistaken but understandable assumption that it is dead.  😊

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hmmm. So far I've seen MQA Ltd. want to remaster content used for demonstrations but all other content is just a right-click-convert process. 

 

Then what is the white glove treatment that MQA said it has given to some recordings?

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

But we also all know that "sponsered" research tends to show what the sponsor wants it to. 

 

Kind of like clinical trials sponsored by pharma companies.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The recorded music industry is doing just fine - https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-record-industry-expects-a-windfall-where-will-the-money-go/

 

I see that  ring tones revenue exceeds streaming royalties, LOL.  Actually, I shouldn't laugh, it's quite sad.

[lucretius]

If something is proven to be snake oil, why go further?

[lucretius]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Paul

 

Have you ever seen the Monty Python sketch where the guy goes in and pays to have an argument?

 

[lucretius]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Perhaps MQA is just pining for the fjords?

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

If something is proven to be snake oil, why go further?

MQA as a package/concept does seem to be snake-oil...  There MIGHT be some tricky techniques in the games that they played in the DSP code.

I despise the likely application of MQA, and despise the attempt at monopolistic control.  MQA is a botch when it comes to the 'whole package', but there just might be some interesting math in there...  (That is why my mind is more open than just 'pitch it into the trashcan'.)  It should be pitched, but figure out what they did -- because it JUST MIGHT not be an obvious technique (things like what mp3 type things do.)

  

John

 

I agree.  But the context of my 'why go further' question relates to Paul suggesting that we/audiophiles need to prove that MQA doesn't sound better than plain PCM, etc. 

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, that is one interesting point of view. 

 

However, consider whom the music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services derive their revenue from. Who are there customers? 

 

In particular, what specific segment of their customers are interested at all in MQA?  I consider your thinking flawed there, in assuming that the labels or any HW manufacturers will pay MQA money for something their highly profitable customer base objects to for a reason that simply cannot be countered. 

 

Consider why why we have high res downloads today. Because the potential customers believe it sounds better and are willing to pay for that better sound. That despite all the raving hostility and utter proof that nothing can sound better than CD quality. We have DSD for the same reason. 

 

Neither the potential MQA customers, nor their customers care much at all about the arguments surrounding the technology. The biggest technical argument for MQA was that it reduced file sizes, which is a non issue and non concern today for multiple reasons. The labels are not going to spend money for a format that nobody buys because it does not sound better. 

 

If MQA were to sound much much better than today’s Redbook music, then all the ethical opposition in the world could not stop its success. On the other hand, if it does not sound better, nothing can save it from becoming dusty audiophile history. (Shrug)  

 

 

I am trying to follow you here but I am having some difficulty.

 

"However, consider whom the music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services derive their revenue from. Who are there customers?"

 

Boutique hardware manufactures/sellers may primarily benefit from audiophiles (that is the larger group for which those interested in computer/digital audio are but a subset); otherwise, the revenue for the music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services comes largely from non-audiophiles.

 

Most, if not all of these non-audiophiles have never heard about MQA. They have no opinion on MQA. No hardware manufacturer is paying MQA Ltd. for the reason that these specific customers want it -- these customers couldn't care less.  The few hardware manufacturers that are paying MQA Ltd. are obviously doing so for other reasons. What could these reasons be?

 

1. They are boutique hardware manufacturers catering to audiophiles (the larger group); and/or

2. They want to ensure that their equipment can accept the "best" streams coming from streaming services; and/or

3. The want to add the bullet point to their marketing literature as well as 'future proof" their product. After all, look what the audiophile press has been saying -- these manufactures are afraid of being left behind. However, as it is becoming more evident that MQA is dying, these manufacturers are a lot less enthusiastic about supporting MQA.

 

Further, the revenue from high res downloads is a pittance. And yes we have DSD but the files are not coming from the major labels. So what does hires and/or DSD got to do with the revenue stream of "music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services"? (Actually, I cannot see music being distributed in DSD format in the long run, except by some obscure, indie label.)

 

"The labels are not going to spend money for a format that nobody buys because it does not sound better".

 

As I said before, the customers noted above (who are providing almost all of the revenue stream) have no opinion on MQA and couldn't care less. So, if these customers are inadvertently forced to subsrcribe to a MQA streaming service (or do without any streaming service), the only thing they will care about is the price and selection. They would also likely be just as happy with MP3s. Similarly for CDs (although I cannot see the production of music CDs continuing on in the long-term). That is, it's not a matter of whether these customers are willing to pay for MQA -- it's about what songs/albums they can get and at what price.

 

It must be obvious that the impetus for the major labels to provide MQA music to streaming services and to consumers has nothing to do with "better" sound. So why do they bother? (That is rhetorical!)

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

cue PaulR

 

Need to cue up the music for that:

 

[lucretius]

On 7/25/2019 at 3:57 PM, mansr said:

That was sarcasm. If he really is British, he'll get it.

 

A reference to Monty Python’s Black Knight?

[lucretius]

On 7/25/2019 at 10:03 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

You know as well as I that AES has an agenda other than some altruistic search for the audio truth. Meyer & Moran was refuted for years but AES refused to acknowledge the study’s shortcomings by publishing rebuttals from peers. 

 

Apparently, the membership largely comprises engineers developing devices or products for audio, and persons working in audio content production (as opposed to professional scholars).  So how can anyone claim that research published by AES is "independent"?

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

I do not purport to know what Mr Atkinson thinks,  but I suspect that Mr Atkinson wanted to lend support to a fellow Brit who was running a failing business.

 

Very What Hi-fi'ish!

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

I have a bridge for sale, it's in Brooklyn.

Does it come with a toll booth? 😊

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, John Dyson said:

From what I can surmise, a lot of the marketing terminology is constructed to mislead as to the details and overestimate the benefit.

 

"Overestimate the benefit"?  LOL. That IS the nature of marketing -- overestimate the benefits and silence on the negatives.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Wow, isn’t that a little cynical? I mean, after all - that applies to almost all commercial entities, doesn’t it? 

 

I like commercial entities that engage in trust-based marketing -- open and honest dialog and unbiased information -- that assists consumers in making informed purchase decisions. Likewise, I like journalists that are as transparent as possible about sources and methods so readers can make their own assessment of the information.

 

Yes, I know. I'm a ...

 

 

Sorry, there was no MQA version available on Tidal.

[lucretius]

58 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I’m sorry Dave I can’t let you think that. I have a bunch of files converted to MQA that were never anything but 16/44.1.  

 

MQA CDs are 16/44.1. However, the only MQA files that I ever streamed from Tidal were either 24/44.1 or 24/48 (usually the latter) before the "unfold".  Maybe, some of the 24/44.1 files were really 16/44.1 with padding?

[lucretius]

23 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Again, you become petulant and defend your stance with silly statements like this. 

 

Evasion again - go listen to MQA vs PCM and give audiophiles yet another, convincing and difficult to dispute reason to stay away from MQA. 

 

 

It's never been about the sound.  Neither the labels nor the largely non-audiophile customer base care about "better" sound.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

It also works the other way.

 

If an album that I love is available in a high rez format, I'll buy that even if my own listening tests have told me that there is very little difference between Redbook and higher resolution PCM formats when the mastering is the same.

 

In other words, knowing that I have the album in the best available "quality" increases my enjoyment of the music. 

 

So long as that high rez is not merely upscaled from another source.  I want the real masters!

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

4 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

It's never been about the sound.  Neither the labels nor the largely non-audiophile customer base care about "better" sound. 

 

We will have to disagree. In the audiophile market, which defines everyone here, it is always and inevitably about the sound. 

 

 

I thought I made it clear that the "audiophile" market is an insignificant fraction of the customer base for the major labels and streaming companies. 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

I thought it was just as clear the the audiophile market is the only market for hi-res or "master" material?

 

I thought we were discussing MQA?

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For your Wednesday morning viewing pleasure...

 

 

 

He clearly said that "the majority of music listening, even if it's not necessarily how most of us in this room are listening, but the majority of listening is going on in smartphones and automobiles.  And so for artists and their labels to be able to take a higher quality experience to the biggest segment of the audience, they needed enabling technology that can do that."  Despite the 'higher quality experience' BS, Jbara did, de facto, just admit that the 'audiophile market' is not the primary target market for MQA technology.