MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

20 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Peter Veth?

[FredericV]

On 7/3/2023 at 1:39 AM, KeenObserver said:

 

Peter Veth?

He just keeps repeating the same already debunked MQA BS, and articles to appeal to authority  ... part of his daily loop.



Curious when this loop will be broken ...

[botrytis]

18 minutes ago, FredericV said:

He just keeps repeating the same already debunked MQA BS, and articles to appeal to authority  ... part of his daily loop.



Curious when this loop will be broken ...

 

Well, the paper that said Vaccines cause Autism was pulled and the author was imprisoned for 10 yrs due to fraud but anti-vaxxers still quote that paper even though it was proven to be wrong. Some people just don't like their belief systems shown to be false.

 

 

[John Dyson]

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Well, the paper that said Vaccines cause Autism was pulled and the author was imprisoned for 10 yrs due to fraud but anti-vaxxers still quote that paper even though it was proven to be wrong. Some people just don't like their belief systems shown to be false.

 

 

This in an intentionally nuanced and sent with super-kind regards:

Also, not intended to agree or disagree with anyone here.

 

The vaccine thing is so complex that many superficially 'true' & 'accurate' statements can easily be interpreted in alternative ways.

MQA is more of a binary thing, perhaps a 95% binary NO.   The vaccine is less binary than the uselessness/damage of MQA.

 

There are flaws in the arguments from the varied sides of the vaccine issue, and frankly it is best NOT to take sides, but instead try to understand lesser-edited data...   How do you do that?  How do you actually find data that hasn't been massaged in a way that might create bias?   When reading or listening to information sources, also listen for the nuances in the claims.  If someone says: VACCINE solves, or VACCINE always good, then there is something missing in the statement.   Generally, VACCINE good, Generally VACCINE helps,  often VACCINE can save a life, but VACCINE does not *solve* the problem.

 

Frankly, the vaccine thing is much more nuanced than the MQA simply being nonsense.

I have my opinons, very strong opinions, but not absolute.  In no way can make a blanket suggestion about what to do, but by far, most of the time, the vaccine is the best choice.   I have been hit by COVID thrice, vaccinated before all of the three hits.   It does not necessarily protect from COVID, but protects from the worst symptoms, and most of the time, protects from death...  For me, it was worst the first and last times, but the middle time wasn't too bad.   Would COVID have killed me?  Probably not, and most likely PACLOVID helped better than the vaccine, but cannot always get the anti-viral in time.

 

Why don't the vaccine advocates and those who shouldn't be advocates (e.g. the news media) actually tell the nuanced truth EVERY TIME rather than add a few tweaks that cause the claims to be politically more acceptable for one group or another?

 

The argument FOR taking the vaccine is stronger when the argument is exactlingly accurate, because people will often feel that there is more honesty.

 

MQA is mostly binary -- just not good.

The vaccines -- not confusing, just nuanced.   Generally good, almost always wise to get the vaccine, but too many pundits, media, and even Drs make strong, absolute claims without nuance.   * The first time is the most important.

 

I probably made a mistake by mentioning the COVID vaccine or vaccines in general, so will accept any response without reply...

 

All I can say, (IN MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION) within an ad-hoc 95% strength of absolute truth, MQA is not a good thing and unwise to adopt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, FredericV said:

He just keeps repeating the same already debunked MQA BS, and articles to appeal to authority  ... part of his daily loop.

Curious when this loop will be broken ...

 

You did notice that the issue of the Journal is over four years old!

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

This in an intentionally nuanced and sent with super-kind regards:

Also, not intended to agree or disagree with anyone here.

 

The vaccine thing is so complex that many superficially 'true' & 'accurate' statements can easily be interpreted in alternative ways.

MQA is more of a binary thing, perhaps a 95% binary NO.   The vaccine is less binary than the uselessness/damage of MQA.

 

There are flaws in the arguments from the varied sides of the vaccine issue, and frankly it is best NOT to take sides, but instead try to understand lesser-edited data...   How do you do that?  How do you actually find data that hasn't been massaged in a way that might create bias?   When reading or listening to information sources, also listen for the nuances in the claims.  If someone says: VACCINE solves, or VACCINE always good, then there is something missing in the statement.   Generally, VACCINE good, Generally VACCINE helps,  often VACCINE can save a life, but VACCINE does not *solve* the problem.

 

Frankly, the vaccine thing is much more nuanced than the MQA simply being nonsense.

I have my opinons, very strong opinions, but not absolute.  In no way can make a blanket suggestion about what to do, but by far, most of the time, the vaccine is the best choice.   I have been hit by COVID thrice, vaccinated before all of the three hits.   It does not necessarily protect from COVID, but protects from the worst symptoms, and most of the time, protects from death...  For me, it was worst the first and last times, but the middle time wasn't too bad.   Would COVID have killed me?  Probably not, and most likely PACLOVID helped better than the vaccine, but cannot always get the anti-viral in time.

 

Why don't the vaccine advocates and those who shouldn't be advocates (e.g. the news media) actually tell the nuanced truth EVERY TIME rather than add a few tweaks that cause the claims to be politically more acceptable for one group or another?

 

The argument FOR taking the vaccine is stronger when the argument is exactlingly accurate, because people will often feel that there is more honesty.

 

MQA is mostly binary -- just not good.

The vaccines -- not confusing, just nuanced.   Generally good, almost always wise to get the vaccine, but too many pundits, media, and even Drs make strong, absolute claims without nuance.   * The first time is the most important.

 

I probably made a mistake by mentioning the COVID vaccine or vaccines in general, so will accept any response without reply...

 

All I can say, (IN MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION) within an ad-hoc 95% strength of absolute truth, MQA is not a good thing and unwise to adopt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All I was pointing out is it's the same type of attitude.

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

This in an intentionally nuanced and sent with super-kind regards:

Also, not intended to agree or disagree with anyone here.

 

The vaccine thing is so complex that many superficially 'true' & 'accurate' statements can easily be interpreted in alternative ways.

MQA is more of a binary thing, perhaps a 95% binary NO.   The vaccine is less binary than the uselessness/damage of MQA.

 

There are flaws in the arguments from the varied sides of the vaccine issue, and frankly it is best NOT to take sides, but instead try to understand lesser-edited data...   How do you do that?  How do you actually find data that hasn't been massaged in a way that might create bias?   When reading or listening to information sources, also listen for the nuances in the claims.  If someone says: VACCINE solves, or VACCINE always good, then there is something missing in the statement.   Generally, VACCINE good, Generally VACCINE helps,  often VACCINE can save a life, but VACCINE does not *solve* the problem.

 

Frankly, the vaccine thing is much more nuanced than the MQA simply being nonsense.

I have my opinons, very strong opinions, but not absolute.  In no way can make a blanket suggestion about what to do, but by far, most of the time, the vaccine is the best choice.   I have been hit by COVID thrice, vaccinated before all of the three hits.   It does not necessarily protect from COVID, but protects from the worst symptoms, and most of the time, protects from death...  For me, it was worst the first and last times, but the middle time wasn't too bad.   Would COVID have killed me?  Probably not, and most likely PACLOVID helped better than the vaccine, but cannot always get the anti-viral in time.

 

Why don't the vaccine advocates and those who shouldn't be advocates (e.g. the news media) actually tell the nuanced truth EVERY TIME rather than add a few tweaks that cause the claims to be politically more acceptable for one group or another?

 

The argument FOR taking the vaccine is stronger when the argument is exactlingly accurate, because people will often feel that there is more honesty.

 

MQA is mostly binary -- just not good.

The vaccines -- not confusing, just nuanced.   Generally good, almost always wise to get the vaccine, but too many pundits, media, and even Drs make strong, absolute claims without nuance.   * The first time is the most important.

 

I probably made a mistake by mentioning the COVID vaccine or vaccines in general, so will accept any response without reply...

 

All I can say, (IN MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION) within an ad-hoc 95% strength of absolute truth, MQA is not a good thing and unwise to adopt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@John Dyson ( edit: sorry @Allan F  misquotation ...)

 

Could you imagine that my mum died from a covid - vaccine injection (the second) without showing any sign of autism?

Her problem had been the guy she lived with, who inserted her in a vaccination queue when she was absolutely unfit for that.

Lack of quality control within the organization that did the vaccination,  too.

She had only 4 weeks left after that, all in the hospital. No-one  was Interested to dig deeper.

I still believe vaccination  was the best way to fight the virus

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let’s stick to MQA in this thread guys. 

[John Dyson]

Post appropriately removed because of the off topic nature.

Even though it was benign, I agree with @The Computer Audiophile .

 

MQA is bad enough!!!
 

[FredericV]

An interesting quote and screenshot posted in the MQA group:

"Here is an update on the future of MQA Limited from the administrators . A number of parties expressed an interest but no final outcome ."

 

Open-sourcing elements of the technology? Which elements?

 

[DuckToller]

Just now, John Dyson said:

My deep regrets...   Too much was happening too quickly with a source that was not going to be politically admitted.   A lot of people have died, moreso than in many wars.

I have lost my best friend, and my Mom (who has COPD) has aged 10yrs after her repeated COVID attacks.  It has taken a serious toll on me also, where it seems like my mental abilities have been lessened in undescribable ways.

 

Again, my regrets -- in fact, it makes me sad about your loss and those who were too good to leave us so suddenly.

It might be best to defer this discussion to an off topic group...

 

Just my opinon!!
John

 

my sincerest condolation  - mum had COPD as well ... bad pre-disposition ...

[firedog]

14 hours ago, FredericV said:

He just keeps repeating the same already debunked MQA BS, and articles to appeal to authority  ... part of his daily loop.


Curious when this loop will be broken ...

 

My guess is when MQA goes bankrupt and isn't available on Tidal anymore, he will still be pushing it (MQA -CDs on Ebay?) and telling the world how the great technology was sabotaged by people who didn't understand it. 

He's already proven himself unable to assimilate facts and reality, why should anything change? 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, FredericV said:

An interesting quote and screenshot posted in the MQA group:

"Here is an update on the future of MQA Limited from the administrators . A number of parties expressed an interest but no final outcome ."

 

Open-sourcing elements of the technology? Which elements?

 

At best, these people will delay the end a few years.

Individual investor/Group sounds like BS's family, again. 

Don't understand why rich people want to throw good money after bad. What makes them think it is going to make money if it hasn't yet?

 

The only thing I can think of is that they might make the full decoder open source software. That would create a huge potential market, and they could have a very small licensing fee on the production or sales end. Such a scheme might have some potential. It would make the potential market much larger, and eliminate many of the objections to the tech. 

[Currawong]

The question in my mind is: If it's just the origami encoder, what would the benefit be? It would just reveal that the encoding doesn't do anything special at all.
If it's any other part of the mastering, it would likely reveal that the processing they did on music wasn't anything particularly special either. 
 

[botrytis]

Well, the MQA Patent is only worth something if it is a 'Usable' patent.   As it currently stands, the only part that seems to be viable is the DRM.

[yamamoto2002]

There is an article about MQA appeared on local magazine 無線と実験 July 2023 pp.116～117. General info about MQA technology and the report of current company situations.

 

I think MQA is fleeting, passing, transient technology using traditional analytic method. There should be completely different audio codec in the near future, this time with deep learning autoencoder, much higher compression ratio and perceptually lossless, because it extract features (instrument, timings, pitch, expression, ...) and store / transfer,  and reconstructs sound from them and trained model parameters

[John Dyson]

5 hours ago, yamamoto2002 said:

There is an article about MQA appeared on local magazine 無線と実験 July 2023 pp.116～117. General info about MQA technology and the report of current company situations.

 

I think MQA is fleeting, passing, transient technology using traditional analytic method. There should be completely different audio codec in the near future, this time with deep learning autoencoder, much higher compression ratio and perceptually lossless, because it extract features (instrument, timings, pitch, expression, ...) and store / transfer,  and reconstructs sound from them and trained model parameters

Before doing any additional layers of processing 'blindly', it is important to start from scratch, removing any from of gratuitious mastering before doing things like 'extracting features'.   Imagine if the signal to noise of the original version is much better, then the various statistics would certainly improve.   If the signal/recording is very clean to begin with, it would be likely that feature extraction would be better.

Even though MQA is the devil, it would be less of a devil if the recording being 'MQAd' might be unmastered.   I doubt that the outrage would be all that severe if the sound qualitiy was very very good.  (Not making excuses for MQA, but an already messed up signal is best not 'played with' any further.)

 

John

 

[Currawong]

On 7/9/2023 at 9:07 PM, yamamoto2002 said:

There is an article about MQA appeared on local magazine 無線と実験 July 2023 pp.116～117. General info about MQA technology and the report of current company situations.

 

I think MQA is fleeting, passing, transient technology using traditional analytic method. There should be completely different audio codec in the near future, this time with deep learning autoencoder, much higher compression ratio and perceptually lossless, because it extract features (instrument, timings, pitch, expression, ...) and store / transfer,  and reconstructs sound from them and trained model parameters

A new audio codec isn't needed. What is needed is ADCs that don't, by default, mess up the audio in the first place. It'll be very interesting when Rob Watts completes the DAVINA. 

[loop7]

More and more albums in my TIDAL collection and playlists which were MQA for years are now appearing as CD. 

 

It's mostly Universal which covers DG and Decca.

 

We are only weeks away from TIDAL's high resolution introduction, correct?

[KeenObserver]

How is MQA's sustainability efforts going?

Have they reached zero carbon footprint?

[botrytis]

14 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

How is MQA's sustainability efforts going?

Have they reached zero carbon footprint?

Zero Air sustainability. The pushers are gasping for air. NICE!!

[Currawong]

8 hours ago, loop7 said:

More and more albums in my TIDAL collection and playlists which were MQA for years are now appearing as CD. 

 

It's mostly Universal which covers DG and Decca.

 

We are only weeks away from TIDAL's high resolution introduction, correct?

Are they watermarked though? Last I checked, many albums were messed up this way regardless.

[UkPhil]

Tidal "Master" now Tidal "Max" lets hope the beta release gets tidied up a bit as we don't know what "Max" is unless you have an external source picking up the signal as its seems the app isn't telling you if its good 'ole FLAC (PCM) or MQA !!

 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/tidal-hi-res-lossless-flac-max-annoying/

 

[Archimago]

7 hours ago, UkPhil said:

Tidal "Master" now Tidal "Max" lets hope the beta release gets tidied up a bit as we don't know what "Max" is unless you have an external source picking up the signal as its seems the app isn't telling you if its good 'ole FLAC (PCM) or MQA !!

 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/tidal-hi-res-lossless-flac-max-annoying/

 

 

LOL. What a mess.

 

I wonder why they couldn't concurrently had both "MASTER" (MQA) and "MAX" (hi-res FLAC)? They've already indicated that they prioritize the hi-res FLAC, so in time, the more "MAX", the better and I trust in a year, not many people will notice that "MASTER" albums continue to fade away and everyone's happy that they're getting "MAX" quality.

 

What kind of execs dream up these schemes?

 

Then again, maybe the vast majority of subscribers don't care so this is Tidal's way to just sever the MQA limb and have no links to MQA-type talk including the idea of "master" sound quality as they expunge MQA from behind the scenes with zero options to have the consumer choose whether they want to keep listening to MQA or not.

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

LOL. What a mess.

 

I wonder why they couldn't concurrently had both "MASTER" (MQA) and "MAX" (hi-res FLAC)? They've already indicated that they prioritize the hi-res FLAC, so in time, the more "MAX", the better and I trust in a year, not many people will notice that "MASTER" albums continue to fade away and everyone's happy that they're getting "MAX" quality.

 

What kind of execs dream up these schemes?

 

Then again, maybe the vast majority of subscribers don't care so this is Tidal's way to just sever the MQA limb and have no links to MQA-type talk including the idea of "master" sound quality as they expunge MQA from behind the scenes with zero options to have the consumer choose whether they want to keep listening to MQA or not.

 

The kind of executives that want to be where the action is in Block Inc. not trying to keep an irrelevant sinking ship afloat.

 

I think the vast majority in the Max tier don’t care about MQA. If Tidal revenues don’t improve greatly then Block Inc. should shut Tidal Music down.

 

I’ve emailed Simon Cohn about his misunderstandings about MQA, Meridian and Tidal Music. He is happy this article is the top performing post on Digital Trends today. He is falling back on the old audio press standbys.  After he played the are you sure card about Meridian’s finances? He just played the why do you care and what’s your skin in the game cards?