MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

time is running out. 

Pretty soon MQA will be vaporware. 

[Rt66indierock]

52 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Pretty soon MQA will be vaporware. 

 

Soon, I hope.  Will you miss Bob Stuart being vague?

[firedog]

20 hours ago, ralphfcooke said:

Quote from 'As we see it'  September Stereophile by Jim Austin

 

Tidal is starting to do standard hi-rez PCM FLAC to complement

their MQA offerings, which, though many prefer them, may be going away.

 

Make of that what you will :)

Tidal really said: we are gradually replacing MQA with standard hi-res.

JA can't even bring himself to assimilate that. Has to dance around it and say "many prefer them". 

I guess "many do prefer them"; but many more DON'T. That's why Tidal Masters-MQA stayed such a small niche player. If people really preferred it, MQA would be a profitable business. 

[FredericV]

On 8/9/2023 at 1:20 PM, firedog said:

Tidal really said: we are gradually replacing MQA with standard hi-res.

Spotted this in audiophile FB groups ;)

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=7386735591342874
 

[garrardguy60]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:52 AM, ralphfcooke said:

Quote from 'As we see it'  September Stereophile by Jim Austin

 

Tidal is starting to do standard hi-rez PCM FLAC to complement

their MQA offerings, which, though many prefer them, may be going away.

 

Make of that what you will :)

 

Mr. Atkinson has weighed in:

 

[ralphfcooke]

Now I'm really confused, the article mentioned (Stereophile Jun2023, pps13) was apparently posted by Jim Austin, not John Atkinson.

In addition the article purports to say that it's been 'Agnostic about MQA' ????

[JoeWhip]

A bit of revisionist history there.

[Thuaveta]

15 hours ago, ralphfcooke said:

In addition the article purports to say that it's been 'Agnostic about MQA'

 

"Despite the naysaying on the interwebs about MQA, in level-matched comparisons with recordings of known provenance, I felt that the MQA versions offered more palpable imaging when unfolded with the I1."

 

Obviously, agnosticism is a subjective construct...

[Thuaveta]

14 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

A bit of revisionist history there.

 

What did you expect ? An honest autobiographical study of his intellectual development from the time of his proclamation of the birth of a new world ?

[KeenObserver]

Amongst other things, this whole debacle has shown us the value of those publications.

[garrardguy60]

21 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Amongst other things, this whole debacle has shown us the value of those publications.

 

A case in point is this comment from one of their main equipment reviewers:

 

[Archimago]

LOL. So this is what it looks like acknowledging the bankruptcy?

 

For the record...

 

 

[garrardguy60]

More nonsense from Jim Austin in his latest "As We See It" essay, posted today:

 

"Tidal is starting to do standard hi-rez PCM FLAC to complement their MQA offerings, which, though many prefer them, may be going away."

[KeenObserver]

Sadly, Copernicus isn't around to lend his support.

[manisandher]

I was initially intriqued by MQA's claim of 'deblurring', and gave it the benefit of the doubt. But listening to it extensively (and sharing my thoughts here and elsewhere), it never lived up to its hype.

 

How anyone could continue to support MQA in any way, shape or form, now that we know it to be the con that it is, is beyond incomprehensible.

 

Mani.

[Sal1950]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:24 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Pretty soon MQA will be vaporware. 

From your lips to Gods ear.

Very slowly but surely, some common sense is returning to high end audio.

 

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? "Peter Aczel"

[Kal Rubinson]

13 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? "Peter Aczel"

The gullibility is a consequence of not wanting to understand or accept the "reliable sources of scientific information."  It is a choice.

[Spike Kasperak]

I have been following this thread for a number of years and i have been waiting for this day to come. Thank the Audio Gods MQA is in the scrap heap of history, along with all the other rubbish ideas and phoney solutions to non existent problems.

 

The audio press who allowed this to happen refuses to acknowledge their folly, even with the news Tidal is replacing their file with real high resolution, and there fore providing the nail in the coffin for MQA. MQA will be a laughable, forgotten episode. What will not be forgotten is the dishonor and shame these publications have brought upon themselves.

 

Spike

[Spike Kasperak]

Even as of a few days ago, the shamless Stereohile editors post this "review":

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ifi-audio-neo-stream-streaming-da-processor

 

This piece of rubbish writing stood out:

"I think I am developing a sweet tooth. Something just felt "right," to pick one simplistic word, about the sonic product MQA achieves. Played back via Tidal Connect, the sound on Coleman Hawkins Encounters Ben Webster (24/96 MQA, Verve/Tidal) was startlingly fine."

[garrardguy60]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

The gullibility is a consequence of not wanting to understand or accept the "reliable sources of scientific information."  It is a choice.

 

Is it a always a case of consciously not wanting to understand, or is it an inability to understand?

 

Consider this question by looking at an example from the sell side of MQA; namely, the staffers and contributors to the pub for which you write.

 

Three with scientific educations -- Jim Austin, John Atkinson, and you -- all clearly understand what the deal is. (Well, you've shown that you clearly understand via what you've written publicly, on forums, etc.. Austin pretends he doesn't understand, but clearly with his doctorate in physics he must. He's just (rationally) choosing to elevate economic incentives over the more ethereal benefits of "the truth." And Atkinson has taken the tortuous approach, trying to have it both ways and/or splitting the difference, by trafficking in statements that attempt to be nominally truthful while still supporting the company line.)

 

On the other side of the fence, two non-scientifically educated Stereophile contributors -- Jason Victor Serinus and former staffer Mikey Fremer -- have, in their cheerleading, never evinced any understanding of MQA. Indeed, neither of them appear to know anything about electronics beyond what they're gleaned from using the equipment. I.e., they are to electronics as most drivers are to cars. Their perspectives come solely from engagement with the user interface. The black box that's in charge is so opaque to them they may as well not be aware that it's there.

 

I would argue that the non-science educations of both make it impossible for them to engage with the subject matter. They look at things through a qualitative lens and lack the ability to engage quantitatively. In Rumsfeldian terms, they don't know what they don't know.

 

I would further speculate that attachment theory may have as much to say about what sources people rely on for their "truths" as does the type of education one has had. But I would be talking out of my hat, since you are the neuroscientist, not I.

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

46 minutes ago, garrardguy60 said:

Is it a always a case of consciously not wanting to understand, or is it an inability to understand?

 

Consider this question by looking at an example from the sell side of MQA; namely, the staffers and contributors to the pub for which you write.

I am not going to engage in this discussion.  My comment was intended to be more general than MQA as, to be sure, was Aczel's intention.  

I was really objecting to using the term, "gullibility" as being too simplistic a diagnosis.

[Allan F]

11 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I was really objecting to using the term, "gullibility" as being too simplistic a diagnosis.

 

Sometimes treating issues as more complex than they really are is not the proper approach either.

[JoeWhip]

I am not a psychiatrist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so here goes. The MQA and the audio press issue is a complicated one. Some may generally prefer the sound. That is OK. Some fell prey to the sales job of Mr. Stuart or the audio show demos where they were first told what they would hear and as most folks do, thought they heard it. Some of those folks will realize they were duped, others will not admit for varied reasons, such as embarrassment. Some for financial reasons. Others will hold on due to their feelings that they know more than the masses. Those folks will never admit they are wrong because their self worth is tied up into their belief structure. By all accounts, MQA is an abject failure, but those true believers will go down with the ship At least the rest of us have options for listening not tied to MQA. For that we should be happy.

[Spike Kasperak]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

I am not a psychiatrist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so here goes. The MQA and the audio press issue is a complicated one. Some may generally prefer the sound. That is OK. Some fell prey to the sales job of Mr. Stuart or the audio show demos where they were first told what they would hear and as most folks do, thought they heard it. Some of those folks will realize they were duped, others will not admit for varied reasons, such as embarrassment. Some for financial reasons. Others will hold on due to their feelings that they know more than the masses. Those folks will never admit they are wrong because their self worth is tied up into their belief structure. By all accounts, MQA is an abject failure, but those true believers will go down with the ship At least the rest of us have options for listening not tied to MQA. For that we should be happy.

Sir, a beautifully crafted analysis. I agree.

 

But then we still need to ask the question. WHY were this relatively small group of reviewers the virtually the only ones that time after time, were enamored with the sound of MQA, when it  is clearly, very clearly, a distorted version of the master file. The fact that a fool like Fremer was able to get away with saying "IF digital sounded THIS good 30 years ago, I would be all in"...not, to mention the countless absurd observations by others

 

There comes a point where subjectiveness reaches its end. One can claim they "like" the tasted of grilled cardboard better than fillet mignon, but since the vast majority of sane people don't, it does not make some outlier more valid, just ridiculous, actually.

[JoeWhip]

I have an opinion on it but I will have to keep that one to myself.