MQA is Vaporware

[firedog]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'd say the writing is on the wall. Labels are not going to produce MQA versions if this is the case, unless contractually bound to do so.

Almost nothing new will be produced in MQA. And hi-res versions will be there instead of most of the MQA that was there before. The MQA selection will be pretty small. Peter will have to suck it up and listen to hi-res flac. 

[FredericV]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'd say the writing is on the wall. Labels are not going to produce MQA versions if this is the case, unless contractually bound to do so.

If they already provide real hi-res files to the other non-MQA platforms (e.g. Qobuz, Amazon Ultra HD, Apple lossless, .... ), there is no reason to do the extra effort just for Tidal only, while Tidal is also dropping the price point.

The higher price point which will soon disappear, paid for MQA. At 11 euro nobody is paying for MQA.

I am not convinced that Tidal will do a bigger effort than their competitors for 11 euro / month. They will probably keep some of the existing MQA content for a while so nobody immediately runs away if all MQA content would be suddenly dropped, but in the not so secret MQA group they are showing evidence that a lot of MQA albums are being replaced by hi-res flac.

Their days are probably numbered.

[bogi]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Peter will have to suck it up and listen to hi-res flac.

Not sure if he will find it perceptually lossless.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, bogi said:

Not sure if he will find it perceptually lossless.

 

Certainly not better than lossless™, there hi-res FLAC will surely fall short. 🤔 🤪🤢🤮

[loop7]

I wonder if writers for the big two pubs will still use MQA content for reviews? If a track/format is not widely available to most consumers, I find it cheating.

[Nikhil]

I have a question about the Gustard R26 and A26 DACs.  I was keen on trying the R26 but stopped short when it had MQA built in.  How much MQA processing is baked into these DACs?  Can one bypass the MQA processing on these DACs?  Does it matter?

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, Nikhil said:

I have a question about the Gustard R26 and A26 DACs.  I was keen on trying the R26 but stopped short when it had MQA built in.  How much MQA processing is baked into these DACs?  Can one bypass the MQA processing on these DACs?  Does it matter?

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Only version 1.21bridge firmware had MQA built in - the previous version did not. I never updated mine.

[Currawong]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:01 PM, Nikhil said:

I have a question about the Gustard R26 and A26 DACs.  I was keen on trying the R26 but stopped short when it had MQA built in.  How much MQA processing is baked into these DACs?  Can one bypass the MQA processing on these DACs?  Does it matter?

I never noticed it in the R26 to be honest!

On 11/21/2023 at 4:31 AM, Archimago said:

I noticed ongoing MQA disgruntlement in the Stereophile As We See It article. Anyhow, I'm trying to respond to the fellow "mieswall" but the system says "You are not authorized to access this page."

 

Anyhow, I might as well respond here and if someone still can post to the Stereophile comments, feel free to direct the discussion...

Honestly, I'd go to a show that you know they will be at, and introduce yourself in person.  

On 3/7/2024 at 11:58 AM, loop7 said:

I wonder if writers for the big two pubs will still use MQA content for reviews? If a track/format is not widely available to most consumers, I find it cheating.

I doubt it. They are reviewing for whomever reads, and whatever they are interested in. If MQA disappears, then so will the interest. It'll quietly be forgotten about. 

[loop7]

I am 100% certain this has been answered prior and I apologize for adding chaff to the thread.

 

MQA streams on TIDAL may be available indefinitely in some cases, correct?

 

I was streaming this via a Lenbrook product and noticed it was MQA.

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, loop7 said:

I am 100% certain this has been answered prior and I apologize for adding chaff to the thread.

 

MQA streams on TIDAL may be available indefinitely in some cases, correct?

 

I was streaming this via a Lenbrook product and noticed it was MQA.

 

 

Correct, TIDAL have never officially said they are dropping MQA, though they have said they will prioritize hi-res FLAC over MQA as the file served. To a large extent this will then depend on what the record label for any particular album title has supplied them.

[firedog]

16 hours ago, loop7 said:

I am 100% certain this has been answered prior and I apologize for adding chaff to the thread.

 

MQA streams on TIDAL may be available indefinitely in some cases, correct?

 

I was streaming this via a Lenbrook product and noticed it was MQA.

 

 

Yes, they've said if they are supplied  a hi-res FLAC version, that will replace the MQA. If not, the MQA will be retained. Apparently b/c it will be, in that case, the closest thing to hi-res they have. 

[botrytis]

29 minutes ago, firedog said:

Yes, they've said if they are supplied  a hi-res FLAC version, that will replace the MQA. If not, the MQA will be retained. Apparently b/c it will be, in that case, the closest thing to hi-res they have. 

 

Then give me CD quality w/o the crap added.

[ARQuint]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:58 PM, loop7 said:

I wonder if writers for the big two pubs will still use MQA content for reviews? If a track/format is not widely available to most consumers, I find it cheating.

 

Someone needs to call out the fake news here for what it is, and it might as well be me. Perhaps it's because the American presidential contest is now (almost) officially set and the strategy of one side depends largely on introducing a false narrative and then using that premise as if it was factual to attack the other side. That, I think, is what's going on here.

 

I use a wide range of reference tracks in my reviews and less than 2% are MQA encoded.  That's always been the case. I stream only Qobuz and have exactly one locally stored file on my equipment review playlist that happens to be MQA-encoded. Most of the thousands of CDs and SACDs in my collection pre-date MQA, and I still use LPs to assess gear. This is pretty much the situation for everyone at TAS (though, of course, different writers use very different proportions of LPs, silver discs, and streaming) and I can think of one, maybe two guys at our friendly competition who have cared much about MQA.

 

Please don't conflate the initial misplaced enthusiasm for MQA from several thoughtful and influential editors, eight or nine years ago, with the way those same writers approached the task of reviewing audio equipment, then and now. Discussions about the merits of the technology (or lack thereof) mostly occurred outside the context of an equipment review. No reviews, or certainly very few, elevated MQA-encoded files as a preferred source material for either the subjective or objective consideration of sound quality. For some of us, the MQA "debate" was about the decline in civility within a hobby known for more camaraderie in years past. It's a trivial observation to point out that the Internet has helped make it this way in so many fields and endeavors.

 

Frankly, my sense is that there has always been a small group of hobbyists who need to detest audio writers who have their name on a masthead and get paid for doing something that's super-fun (though, I'd hasten to add, harder work than you might think.) It's about, to use the tile of a book  by Tom Nichols that's well worth reading, the death of expertise. MQA has become an irrelevancy—if it ever was relevant, except for a brief moment at the outset. For a bitter subset of audiophiles, MQA was nice while it lasted but these folks surely will find some other reason to hate established audio journalism. And this thread will live on, in spirit, if not in actuality.

 

Andrew Quint

[The Computer Audiophile]

30 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Someone needs to call out the fake news

OK, I will. This ⬇️

 

30 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

For some of us, the MQA "debate" was about the decline in civility within a hobby known for more camaraderie in years past

I don’t buy into that. There are some jerks around, of course. Just like real life. 
 

 

I think you’re probably correct that MQA plays a very little role in others reviews. There was a time when it played a much larger role in reviews though. Perhaps an outsized role, given true its relevance. 

 

34 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Frankly, my sense is that there has always been a small group of hobbyists who need to detest audio writers

 

I think you’re correct on this as well. Some writers do their best to be detested, whether they know it or not. I’m sure I irk many people, although not purposely. 
 

For a while MQA took over Tidal, the only HiFi streaming service available in some countries. Some of the detestors (is that a word) were proven correct, that it would replace pure PCM. Fortunately the tide receded and MQA is all but gone for those who don’t want it. Those who are fans of it are now without that which birthed a new world. That’s unfortunate. There should be choice. 

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

Someone needs to call out the fake news here for what it is, and it might as well be me. Perhaps it's because the American presidential contest is now (almost) officially set and the strategy of one side depends largely on introducing a false narrative and then using that premise as if it was factual to attack the other side. That, I think, is what's going on here.

 

I use a wide range of reference tracks in my reviews and less than 2% are MQA encoded.  That's always been the case. I stream only Qobuz and have exactly one locally stored file on my equipment review playlist that happens to be MQA-encoded. Most of the thousands of CDs and SACDs in my collection pre-date MQA, and I still use LPs to assess gear. This is pretty much the situation for everyone at TAS (though, of course, different writers use very different proportions of LPs, silver discs, and streaming) and I can think of one, maybe two guys at our friendly competition who have cared much about MQA.

 

Please don't conflate the initial misplaced enthusiasm for MQA from several thoughtful and influential editors, eight or nine years ago, with the way those same writers approached the task of reviewing audio equipment, then and now. Discussions about the merits of the technology (or lack thereof) mostly occurred outside the context of an equipment review. No reviews, or certainly very few, elevated MQA-encoded files as a preferred source material for either the subjective or objective consideration of sound quality. For some of us, the MQA "debate" was about the decline in civility within a hobby known for more camaraderie in years past. It's a trivial observation to point out that the Internet has helped make it this way in so many fields and endeavors.

 

Frankly, my sense is that there has always been a small group of hobbyists who need to detest audio writers who have their name on a masthead and get paid for doing something that's super-fun (though, I'd hasten to add, harder work than you might think.) It's about, to use the tile of a book  by Tom Nichols that's well worth reading, the death of expertise. MQA has become an irrelevancy—if it ever was relevant, except for a brief moment at the outset. For a bitter subset of audiophiles, MQA was nice while it lasted but these folks surely will find some other reason to hate established audio journalism. And this thread will live on, in spirit, if not in actuality.

 

Andrew Quint

Andrew,

I feel with you. It's quite unfortunate to face the unwashed, uncivilized and attacking hobbyistas, Did I forget mostly anonymous?
I think it's time to accept that the MQA story has placed a deep mistrust for the "professional" media that serves the Hi-Fi industry.
Social media, independent websites and tech-affine blogs have created a counterweight to the former almost ideal world of Hi-Fi critics.
Less educated, at times less enthusiastic, perhaps more rude, definately more independent when they want to. And with a different way of making a living from what they do. Even cheap audio men can quit day jobs nowadays -  if the have the right numbers at YT.

I admire your fight for what you may regard the righteous course. And your visibility here, especially because you seem to have a clear belief system.

Unfortunately - needless to say this is my opinion - it's the industry you serve which lets you down, not the audiophile community.
Best, Tom

[ARQuint]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

⬇️

<< Some writers do their best to be detested, whether they know it or not.>>

 

 

 

As a good friend of mine says, often: "That's for shit sure."

Let's get drunk at AXPONA and make a list. 😉
 

<< For a while MQA took over Tidal, the only HiFi streaming service available in some countries. Some of the detestors (is that a word) were proven correct, that it would replace pure PCM. Fortunately the tide receded and MQA is all but gone for those who don’t want it. Those who are fans of it are now without that which birthed a new world. That’s unfortunate. There should be choice.>>

 

I do agree. And within our little world, MQA certainly hasn't been the only threat to choice. To pick a sore subject, I feel the same way about the dumbed-down version of Atmos that Apple is streaming, something they are (currently) imposing because they can - because they're big, because they're a bully.

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I do agree. And within our little world, MQA certainly hasn't been the only threat to choice. To pick a sore subject, I feel the same way about the dumbed-down version of Atmos that Apple is streaming, something they are (currently) imposing because they can - because they're big, because they're a bully.

Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. Too much irrationality in that paragraph for me to even respond. 
 

 

[ARQuint]

3 hours ago, DuckToller said:

Andrew,

<< I feel with you. It's quite unfortunate to face the unwashed, uncivilized and attacking hobbyistas, Did I forget mostly anonymous?>>

 

This certainly isn't my view of you, Tom. I enjoy reading what you have to say - it's an informed, interesting point of view. If we lived close to one another, I'm pretty sure we'd listen together. I almost always have friends come over to hear equipment that's passing through because their opinions can bolster my own - or make me step back and reassess. I can't say that about a small but quite measurable percentage of people in the industry—manufacturers, publicists, other writers. Chris

<< I think it's time to accept that the MQA story has placed a deep mistrust for the "professional" media that serves the Hi-Fi industry.>>

 

I think it's the deep mistrust of a very small number of people. I go to three audio shows a year and one of the best parts is talking with audiophiles as equals regarding their experiences—both those who read me and those who don't. There's affection and respect, and it goes both ways. They may all just be talking behind my back but I don't think so. (See Chris's comment above.)

 

<< Social media, independent websites and tech-affine blogs have created a counterweight to the former almost ideal world of Hi-Fi critics.
Less educated, at times less enthusiastic, perhaps more rude, definately more independent when they want to. And with a different way of making a living from what they do. Even cheap audio men can quit day jobs nowadays -  if the have the right numbers at YT.>>

 

There's a paradox here. I can't quit my day job but some of these "independent" guys can? Because clicks and "likes" gets them paid substantially more than me, writing as an independent contractor? I'm the "shill?" The motives of "influencers" are generally far from pure.

<< Unfortunately - needless to say this is my opinion - it's the industry you serve which let you down, not the audiophile community.>>

 

I've written before about an audio ecosystem that includes many constituencies - manufacturers, hobbyists, journalists, recording professionals, musicians, and others. We all should be watching out for each other's interests. That's what will keep this thing going.

 

Andy

 

 

 

[bogi]

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I've written before about an audio ecosystem that includes many constituencies - manufacturers, hobbyists, journalists, recording professionals, musicians, and others. We all should be watching out for each other's interests. That's what will keep this thing going.

 

That's not how MQA Corp. behaved in relation to music listeners. They were masking their real intentions, cheating about MQA being lossless, after initial "as artists intended" propaganda they started mass conversions for TIDAL without artists involved, .... Do you see your failure when you were not not pointing to that? Did you recognize the issue MQA introduced when one wants to perform any usual DSP (like room eq correction) on MQA content? Not  everybody wants to subscribe to Roon ... When instead of MQA some AQM Corp. will appear with the same kind of behavior to end listeners, will you change anything in your reactions? I'm not sure you are ready to reflect this point. Therefore not only behavior of industry subjects like MQA Corp., but also reaction of audio press created an issue in the audio ecosystem you are pointing to.

[DuckToller]

19 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

Thank you for your response, Andrew.
I may assume you are a small generation ahead of me (afaik you started undergraduate education when I entered my second year of primary), which may explain why you have such impressive manners in communications (my reception as non native speaker), however it may also lead me to assume that you may follow a different model of understanding how the world should function than I do. That's fine with me, given that I may also have stark differences with Chris' views of the world ;-), at times.

In my book, and I have worked myself through historical examples and numbers during the last year, some significant player in the audio press sector has shown a clear division from their humble & enthusiast beginnings with a noticeable bias on products that offer an higher than average margins, which then were more effectively represented in the years end list and also translated into multiple times higher advertisement levels than for example headphones or headphone amplifiers.

Which means to me, the audio press has since a long time supported that yield on high margin products / cash cows and left the next generation audiophiles (which turned into Walkman, Iphone and personal audio configurations as starters) aside, because there weren't enough profits to be established on these lower margin and low-priced products. Does that allow to assume a conflict of interest?

Consequently, there are today many more music enthusiasts that you can't see at the at least three audiophile gatherings you are visiting annually. In my point of view, the reach of audio shows seems to be a nice sounding bubble with lot's of dream filled whales swimming around. And certainly many friends for an inside actor of more than 30 years. The future of our hobby, however,  isn't there in broad numbers.

They are at Reddit, TikTok or visiting CanJams. They are i.E. the spread from the gaming hobby into music, video and soundscapes. They are young, poor and a majority, and the "industry" has not yet taken care about ways to groom them into their system of infomercial and attached consumerist behaviour. We need to take them serious and there is no need to sell them out.

That's, imho,  exactly the reason why some of the audio press players now may be forced back to having daytime jobs while the infotainment artists of the personal audio generation may make their living through YT, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Sounds to me like the old firm economics weren't really sustainable.
The MQA contra-stance was just a clear signal that consumers won't like to get fooled again ...

It's not really a travesty, at least not viewing it from the buyer market. When you (the audio press) neglect them, they'll find other ways to find exciting entertainment.
As I never have been the brightest flame on the cake (ok, I have had once been siting in a meeting with the Enron guys, but to no avail ;-) ) , I may still wonder what the "geniuses" and their apologetics were really thinking with their MQA s*** show. BS Jesus and his trumpets of integrity? 

Morally, it tastes to me a bit like the Big oil show or the Sackler scandal, just another incredible ignorance of empathy towards the people who may have put trust into them, strictly for personal gain and profits. There were members pointing out the financial interest behind that scheme were also coming from questionable background from SA. As much too often in business cases.

 

Allright, not killing puppies with MQA - but the idea was essentially anti-consumer from its first baby steps and I am happy that it looks like it did not work out.  Also, I would no tend to underestimate that impact on "old media" reception (distrust) by younger generations that have grown up with different kind of medias.

I may want to believe you personally weren't into that - at least I would wonder why you would come and defend yourself and your personal positions and aims - if you were, you may have many better things to accomplish than getting involved in such a discussion in case you wouldn't feel morally obliged to do so..

However, if we can call the Audio industry and the Audio Press a complex, then you may have been well co-existing within the system, and that is exactly the moment where @bogi  post chimes in.
 

As you have my full sympathy, Andrew, I really like a couple of articles from you and won't stop testing out the music repertoire you're offering. I think you're a real expert in that!

 

All the best from France, Tom

[firedog]

On 3/13/2024 at 12:02 AM, ARQuint said:

Discussions about the merits of the technology (or lack thereof) mostly occurred outside the context of an equipment review. No reviews, or certainly very few, elevated MQA-encoded files as a preferred source material for either the subjective or objective consideration of sound quality

Well, I can think of a few writers -and one in particular - who seemed to make a point of writing about MQA files in EVERY review, without exception.

[firedog]

I've written before about an audio ecosystem that includes many constituencies - manufacturers, hobbyists, journalists, recording professionals, musicians, and others. We all should be watching out for each other's interests. That's what will keep this thing going.

 

Agree. But some leaders in the ecosystem  said we should accept MQA even if it wasn't good for the consumer, because it was good "for the industry" JA2 wrote an editorial where he basically said just that. 

That's not watching out for each other's interests - that's abandoning the interests of consumers, musicians, and others - Those that aren't engaging in corporate profit making thru music. That's one of the things that most upset me about the whole MQA episode. It was basically "the industry" trying to force a format on the consumer that didn't bring any real benefit, yet added costs and complexity. 

[MikeyFresh]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

Well, I can think of a few writers -and one in particular - who seemed to make a point of writing about MQA files in EVERY review, without exception.

 

Absolutely no question this was the case, very easy to see, in fact it would have been difficult to miss that this was happening. A few of those writers were pretty much wearing it on their sleeve so to speak. That behavior was evident at a glance, multiple mentions of MQA in every review.

[ARQuint]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Well, I can think of a few writers -and one in particular - who seemed to make a point of writing about MQA files in EVERY review, without exception.

 

3 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Absolutely no question this was the case, very easy to see, in fact it would have been difficult to miss that this was happening. A few of those writers were pretty much wearing it on their sleeve so to speak. That behavior was evident at a glance, multiple mentions of MQA in every review.

 

I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same guy. For what it's worth, I think he's the least capable writer at his publication - despite being given the most expensive gear to review. His MQA stance, IMO, is part of a generalized narcissism that informs much of his writing. I don't think he's typical of the staff of his magazine and certainly not of mine. 'Nuff said. If you can find mentions of MQA in TAS over the last 5 years (other than to note it, dispassionately, as a feature of a product) cite them. I read the magazine pretty closely aSnd they're not there.

 

There's another aspect of the MQA rise and fall that I'm willing to discuss openly because I'm honestly unsure of the "right"—as in morally correct—stance. For as long as the issue's been out there, some audiophiles have maintained that a reviewer not savaging MQA was as guilty as being a zealous proponent. I don't think that's fair because an audio publication ought to be able to define what its role is. That role, I feel, can be to inform, entertain, and help with purchasing decisions—that's how John Atkinson explained it to me  years ago. Despite the awards and lists of recommended products, we're not Consumer Reports and certainly a consumer protection agency. I've said many times that this hobby, especially the subjective part of it, is about the point of intersection of art and technology, a perspective that CR can't and won't provide. We can provide some leeway and room for discussion of different points of view. If we don't, I think it's a slippery slope. Should the technological basis of Ted Denney's products be reviled? I don't think so but plenty of  audiophiles facilely  dismiss him as a P.T. Barnum. How about pricey cables? Also a scam? Some people think so. You can see where I'm going with this.

 

For some reason, most audiophiles have been able to say something like "If you don't think $5000 interconnects make a difference, if you feel that a Vibratron is bullshit, don't buy them" and that's the end of the discussion. Hostilities have been avoided.

 

Chris has told us about his friendship with Peter McGrath. I've had a close relationship with him myself. I would have loved to been a fly on the wall on that dreary Minnesota afternoon when MQA came up in discussion. I bet it was civil, I bet it was respectful. Two well-informed and experienced individuals expressed opposing ideas (I assume) and no one stomped out in a huff. Face to face, we can be pretty decent to one another.

 

Andy Quint

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

There's another aspect of the MQA rise and fall that I'm willing to discuss openly because I'm honestly unsure of the "right"—as in morally correct—stance. For as long as the issue's been out there, some audiophiles have maintained that a reviewer not savaging MQA was as guilty as being a zealous proponent.

 

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. In this case mine is very different from those suggesting, "a reviewer not savaging MQA was as guilty as being a zealous proponent." I disagree with that stance, but can see why others think it's correct. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Chris has told us about his friendship with Peter McGrath. I've had a close relationship with him myself. I would have loved to been a fly on the wall on that dreary Minnesota afternoon when MQA came up in discussion. I bet it was civil, I bet it was respectful. Two well-informed and experienced individuals expressed opposing ideas (I assume) and no one stomped out in a huff. Face to face, we can be pretty decent to one another.

 

I chased him down the block. Only kidding. We actually still talk about it, and we both fully understand each other's position. It's not even a big deal between us.