MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

11 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Interesting that this is already happening at just 1 month into the announcement. Again, if this is true, looks like it's not "business as usual" for MQA.

 

If there is money being exchanged - for example, Tidal needing to send $$$ to MQA for use of encoded content - then I can see why they might want to cut off that overhead expenditure as soon as possible. Another sign might be if Roon or Audirvana turn off the ability to decode MQA in software if they too have to send royalties to MQA for decoding streams! Already, Roon turned off default MQA decoding last year I think.

 

Once all the players accept that there is no future in MQA, maybe it's not unexpected that the amount of content will collapse quite quickly especially if there is still $$$ being exchanged for the use of this dead product.

 

It is possible the contract between Tidal Music and MQA Ltd. contains a termination for an insolvency event paragraph. This kind of language would be standard.

[Archimago]

10 hours ago, John Dyson said:

About the 'family jewels' still being kept in a 'safe'...

(Most reading this already know my 'party line', but for those who don't -- read further)

 

The technical quality of the distribution copies of recordings has been a disappointment since 'digital' appeared.   The distributors were apparently never intending to provide 'full quality' to the consumer, hiding that reality by misapplying  the term 'digital' as meaning perfection.

 

There is a  'should be scandal' about the  technical quality of mainstream commercial recordings as sold to consumers.   Instead of focusing on scandal, someone (me) started 'a fools errand' to figure out how to recover the recordings and re-constitute them.    The finally successful results of the  'fools errand' is probably soon to be demonstrated (days, not weeks) that much of the quality can be recovered, and that the fact about the 'distortion' needs to be publically exposed.   The distributors should be encouraged to provide full quality recordings.

 

The ACTUAL recordings, or versions recovered, DO sound better than the distributed copies.   The distribution houses really SHOULD give in to distributing full quality recordings from before, maybe, 1990?  Full quality of my own copies of Taylor Swift's recordings doesn't make a lot of improvement, but believe it or not some of 'Carly Rae Jepsen's recordings do sound pretty good.

 

There is still a lot of room for improvement, but MQA was NEVER it.   Better than current distribution technology is NOT needed,  at least 48k/16bit would be great.   It is all about what was recorded onto the bits, not the bits themselves.

 

John

 

Have fun with the ongoing work John.

 

Definitely agree with the last sentence in bold! Tons of recordings out there like 192kHz stuff that just takes up the bits but the quality sucks. Total waste of storage. Also, 16/48 is my preferred format as well when I downsample "hi-res" stuff that has no business using up 24-bits and wasted high samplerates.

 

Looking forward to the upgraded sound of local gal Carly Rae Jepsen. 😆

[Rt66indierock]

On 4/30/2023 at 6:14 PM, Archimago said:

 

With the gradual dissolution of the directorship and I see the lack of any further social media engagement (no updates on the MQA Twitter and FaceBook feeds) since around April 3rd for example, clearly this is not business as usual which seems to be the euphemistic hopeful outlook being presented by Darko/Lavorgna.

 

As usual, I think Darko is being coy about much of this because I think he's a lot smarter than what he portrays; can't say the same of Lavorgna who seems to have difficulty expressing himself in speech. I'm sure they've read a lot of what has been written and understand the untenable position of the MQA apologists but have to hold back because their incomes depend on being in the good graces of the audiophile industry as spokesmen. They have to look like the "good guys" and therefore project the idea of "extremists" upon folks like us nay-sayers.

 

What is at issue here is not "us vs. them" (Darko/Lavorgna are purposely creating an immature split by getting "personal" as if the lines are that easily defined). Rather it's about "honesty vs. hype", "full master quality vs. degradation", and "freedom vs. corporate control"; it's not about the people who take sides but rather why there is opposition among audiophiles.

 

As far as I can tell, for the most part, audiophiles who know about MQA have mostly rejected it once they understood the implicit dishonesty when we look at the forum posts here and elsewhere. Funny that the duo gave a shout out to Peter Veth though - birds of a feather? 😄

 

Doubtful John Darko is smarter than he seems. I’ve met him and exchanged a few emails. He made some rude comments about me and challenged me to come to RMAF. When I said here I am John after a seminar, he said I don’t know what you are talking about.

 

Michael Lavorgna said ugly things about me too, but he apologized to me face to face.

 

And I doubt either of them read anything about MQA that didn’t mimic the party line.

[Currawong]

I'm going to give John the benefit of the doubt and, given his workload (that seemed to have caused him health problems recently) and non-participation in forums and online discussion, assume that he takes companies at their word. A similar thing happened with a friend of mine who is knowledgable both about hi-fi and audio mastering. He simply wasn't aware of the research that had been done into the validity of MQA's claims. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Currawong said:

I'm going to give John the benefit of the doubt and, given his workload (that seemed to have caused him health problems recently) and non-participation in forums and online discussion, assume that he takes companies at their word. A similar thing happened with a friend of mine who is knowledgable both about hi-fi and audio mastering. He simply wasn't aware of the research that had been done into the validity of MQA's claims. 

Yeah, don't think so. I think John does some good work subjectively evaluating equipment, and his reviews could help some with buying decisions.

But he and ML are both in the camp of "we're smarter than everyone else, even when we don't actually know what we are talking about". Their not infrequent columns/podcasts/videos making fun of other points of view in audiophilia are incredible arrogant and condescending to others.

Their default position is always to defend pure radical subjectivism and "the industry". Their lack of technical understanding of MQA and blind boosting of it smacks of the intentional ignorance of people who know their living depends of being industry insiders.. 

[Gustave]

So far I thought John Darko and Michael Lavorna were among the slightly better audio journalists. The podcast linked above is a reminder that they are more in the Jim Austin/ Robert Harley camp of evangelists when it comes to MQA.

 

It is still a mystery to me how MQA managed to brainwash or buy so many audio journalists.
 
As we all know, audio journalism thrives on small favors. A benefical review here, a friendly mention there. This doesn't hurt much, because at worst a few people buy a device that isn't quite as good as they hoped.

 

MQA was clearly different. If it had been a success as planned by Bob Stuart, we would all be poorer. Both financially and in terms of sound quality.

 

It will not be easy for the press to regain the lost trust. For now, this does not even seem to be planned.

 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

So far I thought John Darko and Michael Lavorna were among the slightly better audio journalists. The podcast linked above is a reminder that they are more in the Jim Austin/ Robert Harley camp of evangelists when it comes to MQA.

 

It is still a mystery to me how MQA managed to brainwash or buy so many audio journalists.
 
As we all know, audio journalism thrives on small favors. A benefical review here, a friendly mention there. This doesn't hurt much, because at worst a few people buy a device that isn't quite as good as they hoped.

 

MQA was clearly different. If it had been a success as planned by Bob Stuart, we would all be poorer. Both financially and in terms of sound quality.

 

It will not be easy for the press to regain the lost trust. For now, this does not even seem to be planned.

 

 

WE ARE THE MERCHANDISE, not the audio equipment. Really, that is the issue. The audio press went from reviewing equipment for the public to getting the public hooked on the next big deal in audio.

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

WE ARE THE MERCHANDISE, not the audio equipment. Really, that is the issue. The audio press went from reviewing equipment for the public to getting the public hooked on the next big deal in audio.

 

While the above was really always the case for many years, this time it was amazing to see just how overboard and unrelenting it was, never recognizing that was at some point well beyond a bridge too far in terms of their industry support, at the cost of the readers among others. Hubris.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

While the above was really always the case for many years, this time it was amazing to see just how overboard and unrelenting it was

 

Agree. Audio journalism has always been a balancing act between the interests of readers and those of advertisers. What makes MQA coverage a game-changer is that reader interest has completely disappeared from the equation.

 

Sometimes I think that with the death of Art Dudley and the departure of John Atkinson as Stereophile editor, the era of reasonably ethical audio journalism came to an end.

[Archimago]

On 5/3/2023 at 5:01 AM, Gustave said:

So far I thought John Darko and Michael Lavorna were among the slightly better audio journalists. The podcast linked above is a reminder that they are more in the Jim Austin/ Robert Harley camp of evangelists when it comes to MQA.

...

 

I think Darko is teachable ;-). I see recently he pulled out a mic and did measurements of his room's frequency response and reverb time. That's a good start which is why I think he's a smart guy and I can appreciate the work he puts into the videos. His work ethic is great but how honest he can be about depth and breadth of audiophilia and the truths beneath the subjective/hype façade of some things including MQA is the question. I think the best journalists must be independent and I don't think he can be independent if companies buy ad space on his site and is dependent on them sending in products to review.

 

Lavorgna is more of an enigma and unfortunately I think comes across as rather dull and can barely seem to express himself without disjointed, halting speech in his podcasts. He seems to be an angry dude, have a look at some of the odd and rather grotesque videos he has made and the language he uses over the years (alas much of his writings including all the AudioStream stuff gone). I'm rather shocked as to why companies send him stuff to review when he barely writes anything of substance from what I've seen - maybe that's why they like him. ;-)

 

14 hours ago, Gustave said:

Agree. Audio journalism has always been a balancing act between the interests of readers and those of advertisers. What makes MQA coverage a game-changer is that reader interest has completely disappeared from the equation.

 

Sometimes I think that with the death of Art Dudley and the departure of John Atkinson as Stereophile editor, the era of reasonably ethical audio journalism came to an end.

 

Yeah, I agree. Audio journalism needs to at least appear that they're looking out for the best interests of the consumers. Without open examination of things like the value of products (especially these days with the exorbitantly-priced ever-increasing megabuck stuff), and addressing the issue with "diminishing returns" on actual sound quality, IMO, they will be reaching fewer and fewer customers. In part, I think the traditional older audiophiles will diminish in number with age, and the younger audiophiles are more tech savvy plus big speakers and energy-inefficient tube amps and such I don't think will have the same draw as in previous generations (space constraints, ethical reasons perhaps). Headphones, wireless technologies need to be embraced, just as multichannel/Atmos also is part of the future progress of high-fidelity. Who knows, maybe just a few sales to the mega-wealthy dude who demands "High End" gear is all a company needs these days.

 

Although I appreciate what JA has done over the years to keep objective testing alive in Stereophile, I still think his statements about MQA, especially that horrible "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." line is a really hard one to forget. Statements like this tell us about his underlying intentions as Editor and ease at which he might be manipulated by the Industry without thoughtful consideration of the technology.

 

As I've expressed before, there's no shame in admitting if one is wrong... As far as I know, JA has never set the record straight over the years of evidence that MQA is a scam, just as he has remained quiet since MQA's (very likely) demise. Still not a peep about this in most mainstream magazines.

[Gustave]

22 hours ago, Archimago said:

Although I appreciate what JA has done over the years to keep objective testing alive in Stereophile, I still think his statements about MQA, especially that horrible "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." line is a really hard one to forget.

 

Difficult to tell whether this was just a careless comment on an obviously impressive MQA event or the beginning of the big MQA conspiracy. Personally I have no problem with a bit of euphoria as long as it is accompanied by the willingness to take a closer look and change one's mind later.

 

The former German chancellor Konrad Adenauer once famously said after making a political u-turn „What do I care about my chatter from yesterday. Nobody can stop me from getting smarter every day.“

 

I am still waiting for an article on MQA following that spirit.

 

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, Gustave said:

 

Difficult to tell whether this was just a careless comment on an obviously impressive MQA event or the beginning of the big MQA conspiracy. Personally I have no problem with a bit of euphoria as long as it is accompanied by the willingness to take a closer look and change one's mind later.

 

The former German chancellor Konrad Adenauer once famously said after making a political u-turn „What do I care about my chatter from yesterday. Nobody can stop me from getting smarter every day.“

 

I am still waiting for an article on MQA following that spirit.

 

Waxing poetically is the subjective way.

 

I think you will be waiting for a retraction til Hell freezes over.

[yahooboy]

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

Waxing poetically is the subjective way.

 

I think you will be waiting for a retraction til Hell freezes over.

Well it has happened before

[botrytis]

[NOMBEDES]

I take all "audio journalism" with a grain of salt.   The journalist can certainly describe the equipment, specifications and features which all well and good.   But given that listening environments are so different, system configurations are so varied, etc how can we give anything beyond passing attention to Sound Quality impressions?

 

Besides.  these journalist get more fee audio equipment than a Supreme Court Justice.   I know I would be influenced by such largess.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

Besides.  these journalist get more fee audio equipment than a Supreme Court Justice.   I know I would be influenced by such largess.

I must have missed that boat. Where do I get on?

[sphinxsix]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must have missed that boat. Where do I get on?

He clearly suggests that you are into Atmos because you didn't know what to do with a dozen free Wilsons.😉

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

He clearly suggests that you are into Atmos because you didn't know what to do with a dozen free Wilsons.😉

Ah yes, I wish my accountant saw it that way :~)

[NOMBEDES]

Chris, I love this site.  When I first started working with digital (Computer) based music the people on this site gave me good (non judgmental) advice.   I am forever thankful.  

 

Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can be damaging.   I, and others, trust your judgement and we have no reason to doubt your dedication to our hobby.  

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, NOMBEDES said:

Chris, I love this site.  When I first started working with digital (Computer) based music the people on this site gave me good (non judgmental) advice.   I am forever thankful.  

 

Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can be damaging.   I, and others, trust your judgement and we have no reason to doubt your dedication to our hobby.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're too kind. I play a small role in the success of this site, sometimes babysitting adults, but for the most part steering the ship full of amazingly smart and kind people who give others their time, without anything expected in return.

 

I have no issues with anyone raising potential issues with anything I do or say, because I have nothing to hide. 

 

I'm forever thankful to you guys. 

[botrytis]

53 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ah yes, I wish my accountant saw it that way :~)

My wife would be jealous and want a system of her own. Just not with Daleks.....

[Stereo]

Some information about Tidal and Block

Reddit - Dive into anything 



https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=347340

 

 

 

[Shadorne]

On 4/16/2023 at 9:56 PM, Archimago said:

 

By now, some obvious responses to comments like this:

 

3. More likely than not those who liked the MQA sound, just liked the "remastering" differences the MQA encoding process added. For example, a little louder in some versions. A bit more treble boost in others. Just like some people like remastered CDs, the difference is a subjective one due to processing, not actual resolution improvements. There are also those listeners who don't like what this processing added.

 

 

Mathematically, there is a difference on the output between minimum phase apodized filtering (MQA) vs Linear phase brickwall (best practice). So even if the higher then human hearing frequency stuff isn’t audible (which it isn’t), there is likely a real difference beyond any Re-mastering. 
 

I could always hear an audible difference on every MQA file I tested compared to non-MQA  - so I believe it isn’t just a different master. Also the sheer number of MQA files suggests they could not remaster all of them in the conventional sense of a mastering engineer tweaking the masters.

 

To me the most audible aspect of MQA was a slight compression (from apodizing) and an audible reduction in phase accuracy (compared to industry standard linear phase brickwall non-leaky filtering). Both these artifacts are exactly what mathematics would predict from the methodology MQA uses.

 

Glad to see the industry get over MQA as it gave no benefits. Now if only we can get rid of DSD - the other useless format that offers no benefits over PCM. The perfect format remains hi-res PCM.

[MikeyFresh]

As we approach the 8-week timeframe for the Insolvency Practitioner's plan submission, I see that some MQA cheerleaders such as JVS can't leave it alone.

 

In his May 29th "The Icing On The Munich Cake" report, JVS goes out of his way to state that "Peter (McGrath) stuck to MQA-encoded files played through his computer" during his hour long demo in the Wilson/Nagra room. 

 

Funny then that the DAC is use there, the Nagra Classic DAC II, does not support MQA, and resamples all PCM to DSD256.

 

What does that say about "full MQA decoders" and their supposed efficacy? How about MQA's MP filtering scheme, and the mythical "deblurring of time smear"?

 

Apparently in redesigning the original Classic DAC with a recent Mk. II update, the venerable Nagra brand weren't exactly feeling it with regard to MQA adoption, and even Wilson's own Peter McGrath now tacitly admits the emperor has no clothes.

 

Of course we'll probably be told that Peter was doing the full decode in software, and so obviously that was the bee's knees, regardless of the DAC in use... and Peter's special software even corrected for the myriad of known flaws in the Classic DAC II's digital filtering scheme.

 

 

[Archimago]

18 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

As we approach the 8-week timeframe for the Insolvency Practitioner's plan submission, I see that some MQA cheerleaders such as JVS can't leave it alone.

 

In his May 29th "The Icing On The Munich Cake" report, JVS goes out of his way to state that "Peter (McGrath) stuck to MQA-encoded files played through his computer" during his hour long demo in the Wilson/Nagra room. 

 

Funny then that the DAC is use there, the Nagra Classic DAC II, does not support MQA, and resamples all PCM to DSD256.

 

What does that say about "full MQA decoders" and their supposed efficacy? How about MQA's MP filtering scheme, and the mythical "deblurring of time smear"?

 

I remember McGrath playing some demos back in 2019 and not even mentioning he was using MQA at that time. Who knows if he can tell a difference or even cares. Sounds like it's JVS making a deal of even mentioning it. 

 

McGrath should move on and use the hi-res source files. How silly this has been all these years using bitrate-reduced MQA playing his own files! Seems really silly to perform a "high end" demo with compromised MQA when the actual hi-res files are readily available.

 

Indeed, will be interesting to see the insolvency plan. Wonder if anyone is going to purchase SCL6/MQAir.