MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

After reading many long threads, it strikes me that something very important is not being said (or said clearly enough): MQA isn't wrong because it could potentially contain DRM. Or because its acoustic benefits are, at best, subtle. It's dangerous because it's proprietary.

 

This concern is obvious and undeniable. MQA attempts to replace well-accepted open data formats with a proprietary format - to replace lossless formats with a lossy one - mainly so that one company can grow rich by charging everyone a lucrative toll, forever. Presented as a total replacement for existing formats at both high- and low-end, MQA isn't simply a technical innovation. It's a cancer that becomes valuable only to the extent that it can take over the market.

 

Closed ecosystems are beneficial to the profit picture, but always anti-consumer. Open formats give consumers the control they deserve. And open formats are the only protection against a corporate ratchet effect, that slowly erodes consumer benefits. (Examples are endless. Look at UHD Blu-ray - a worthwhile evolution, in theory, it's being used to roll out always-on Internet copy-protection. But it's not just about DRM. You can't effectively embed advertising in an open format, for example. For industry, the ideal format is one that breaks when you try to edit out the ads.)

 

As consumers and music fans, we need to realize that whatever the up-front benefits of MQA, we are not the target customers. MQA lives or dies according to its acceptance by the recording and distribution industry. This handful of large companies can arbitrarily decide to make MQA the standard. They have massive long-term motivation to do so, absent any strong signs that the consuming public would rebel. In other words, we don't have to sound thrilled about MQA; all we have to do is fail to actively oppose it. The industry is just starting to realize what a wonderful thing MQA would be - for them.

 

High bitrates and low noise are all very well, but, next to the air between a musician and audience, it's open formats that present the lowest barrier to transmission.

 

Happy listening.

 

Yes, very well stated - you should blog this post.

 

Be prepared to be tagged as "a hater" who is simply arguing out of your irrational "feelings"

 

I would be interested in your thoughts as to why the "Audiophile Press" has been so pro "recording and distribution industry" and anti-consumer. My working theory is that they are too close to the industry in an effort to gain "access" and too distant from actual consumers - not a conspiracy just a broken system with consequences...

 

EXCELLENT point about advertising...folks should ask themselves about their last attempt to skip the advertising (FBI notice, previews, now plane jane product placements, etc.) on Blue Ray....

[barrows]

While I do believe the above "fire wall" is exists in practice, and even that the editors/reviewers themselves depend on it, it the case of MQA it has been irrelevant. You ask for "proof" of their anti-consumer, pro-industry bias. The only "proof" I or any other consumer has is in their behavior and writings. They simply do not care to look at MQA from any other angle excepting the industries larger business problems (see Robert Harley's "Master Quality Authenticated (MQA): The View From 30,000 Feet") or from an insular, "sound quality is the ONLY criteria to judge anything" angle perhaps best expressed by John Atkinson himself:

 

"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."

 

When I discussed this issue with John Atkinson himself on the Stereophile blog, he completely dismissed the idea that MQA (or something like it) has any serious ramifications for the consumer at all except sound quality.

 

Heck, I would give them their due if they had been anywhere correct about the SQ aspect but here in the real world it turns out that MQA is not the "birth of a new world" SQ wise. It is at best a modest (even important) tweak in some cases, irrelevant or worse for other recordings.

 

You can go on about "proof" (which is largly irrelavant/not valid when it comes to human motivation) all you want but the proof is in da puddin...

 

I would differ slightly in POV: The masses listen almost entirely to MP3 coded music, if MQA catches on for the masses, and replaces MP3, then that will likely be a wholesale step up in sound quality for the masses, and a game changer in that regard.

 

The problem I see, is that for audiophiles, we may lose access to straight, uncompressed non-DRMed high res files.

[jhwalker]

Bob Stuart says (in the Q & A found right here on this site):

 

"MQA audio is PCM in a world of PCM..."

 

"Yes. The MQA stream is PCM..."

 

I recall one of Bob's marketing folks saying "MQA is just PCM" with some emphasis in a video but can't recall where now. The point is that this false eqivalency is a marketing strategy - meant to ease your mind into accepting a codec that is in fact as different from your PCM as it is from DSD or MP3...

 

Well, of course he's right - MP3 and MQA, both, are PCM, as well, as are WMA, AAC, ALAC, FLAC, etc.

 

But I see your point - I'd not seen that specific claim, and I agree they are trying to minimize the difference between full-resolution, lossless, PCM (e.g., WAV, AIFF, ALAC, FLAC) and compressed / folded, somewhat lossy PCM (MQA).

[Jud]

Well, of course he's right - MP3 and MQA, both, are PCM, as well, as are WMA, AAC, ALAC, FLAC, etc.

 

But I see your point - I'd not seen that specific claim, and I agree they are trying to minimize the difference between full-resolution, lossless, PCM (e.g., WAV, AIFF, ALAC, FLAC) and compressed / folded, somewhat lossy PCM (MQA).

 

As I've noted before, it's not the "lossy" aspect that should worry anyone. Our favorite players and conversion software are usually "lossy" as well, which simply means what comes out can't mathematically be restored to the original. Nor is it even necessarily the "black box" nature of the lossy filtering, as few of the developers of the players and converters we use reveal how their filters are constructed.

 

There are only two things we should be worried about: The *quality* of the filtering, and the possibility, quite remote at this point (but still worth watching for), that MQA would crowd other formats out of the market.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[GUTB]

Relying on the audiophile press for objective information is tough because they never review something they don't like...that's an exaggeration of course but we all know it's also fairly close to the truth.

 

But there is no reason to believe that Darko said about an Inconvenient Truth MQA Sounds Better is a bald-faced lie, for example. There's no reason why 2L would lie about being able to correct ADC artifacts in MQA. There's no reason why investigating MQA SQ would be waste of time or money.

 

Basically I'm here for the SQ. If MQA brings it, I have the money. Other topics are frankly irrelevant-- such as the philosophical debate on wether or not music should be commercial. If MQA has or is planning on DRM that's not that important to me. If Tidal gets a stranglehold on MQA due to studio collusion then fine.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[crenca]

Relying on the audiophile press for objective information is tough because they never review something they don't like...that's an exaggeration of course but we all know it's also fairly close to the truth.

 

But there is no reason to believe that Darko said about an Inconvenient Truth MQA Sounds Better is a bald-faced lie, for example. There's no reason why 2L would lie about being able to correct ADC artifacts in MQA. There's no reason why investigating MQA SQ would be waste of time or money.

 

Basically I'm here for the SQ. If MQA brings it, I have the money. Other topics are frankly irrelevant-- such as the philosophical debate on wether or not music should be commercial. If MQA has or is planning on DRM that's not that important to me. If Tidal gets a stranglehold on MQA due to studio collusion then fine.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

I see your point - your just fine with the implications of DRM/closed/IP-protected-proprietary formats at the bottom of your musical eco-system that crowd out other options and or deliver "bad" DRM, advertisement, or otherwise limit a consumers options (such as with DSP, etc.). Others are not. Perhaps a poll is in order...

[crenca]

I would differ slightly in POV: The masses listen almost entirely to MP3 coded music, if MQA catches on for the masses, and replaces MP3, then that will likely be a wholesale step up in sound quality for the masses, and a game changer in that regard.

 

The problem I see, is that for audiophiles, we may lose access to straight, uncompressed non-DRMed high res files.

 

You got me thinking about my trip to Target yesterday to pick up baby wipes and a few other items. The baby section is near the electronics, music, and the Blue Rays. So I walk down the music aisle. CD's have one side of one aisle, and it looks horrible. About 50% of the treys are empty - it looks like a Target employee has not even walked down that aisle (let alone re-stock/straigten up) in a few days at least. I turn around, and look at the 4 well stocked, neatly kept aisle's of DVD and Blue Rays. It is THIS that has happened to "the industry", and not piracy - it is cell phones, Blue Rays, etc. Video killed the radio star, NOT piracy.

 

In any case I realized just how irrelevant the CD has become, which means that PCM 16/44 is a dead man walking - downloads (including PCM/DSD Hi Res) and all. It will be sooner, not later (I would not all be surprised if it happens within 5, certainly 10 years) that audiophiles loose our access to non DRMed music. There will always be the niche artists/downloads (think Blue Coast, etc.) available in PCM/DSD, but the vast majority (all the major label/ artists) will be available in MQA (or something like it) only. Of course I am playing a prophet here and don't know fer sur, but boy, I think one really has to be myopic to not see this coming.

 

Question is, will vinyl be the "audiophiles" saving grace?

[Pat Case]

I would differ slightly in POV: The masses listen almost entirely to MP3 coded music, if MQA catches on for the masses, and replaces MP3, then that will likely be a wholesale step up in sound quality for the masses, and a game changer in that regard.

 

The problem I see, is that for audiophiles, we may lose access to straight, uncompressed non-DRMed high res files.

 

What you say might be true. Unless, of course, MQA is nothing more that a sophisticated EQ process. I know how Keith Jarrett and Paul Lewis want their music to be heard, their engineers ensure a particular high quality. When I listen to these artists live and then I listen to them at home, the satisfaction that I gain is that 'almost there' sense obtained by listening through good audio equipment. I don't want anyone else telling me how I should hear these artist - MQA, IMO, does that.

[Vincent1234]

What you say might be true. Unless, of course, MQA is nothing more that a sophisticated EQ process. I know how Keith Jarrett and Paul Lewis want their music to be heard, their engineers ensure a particular high quality. When I listen to these artists live and then I listen to them at home, the satisfaction that I gain is that 'almost there' sense obtained by listening through good audio equipment. I don't want anyone else telling me how I should hear these artist - MQA, IMO, does that.

It's not a sophisticated EQ process. The 'claims' are it corrects time smearing effects, especially from older ADC's who used to have troubles in that area. Some report that MQA enhances for instance the reverberation of the music hall and that it gives an increase of naturalness. If this is true of course should be judged by one's own ears. In any case, you are always listening to an editorialized version of the truth, with or without MQA. Although I do get your concern of MQA defining the 'final sound'.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

I see your point - your just fine with the implications of DRM/closed/IP-protected-proprietary formats at the bottom of your musical eco-system that crowd out other options and or deliver "bad" DRM, advertisement, or otherwise limit a consumers options (such as with DSP, etc.). Others are not. Perhaps a poll is in order...

 

Closed and IP-protected: yes. DRM: not yet, but we have no guarantees for the future.

Crowd out of other options: extremely unlikely. A closed, proprietary format like MQA will never be able to crowd out existing open formats because of this same reason: it's closed which means people need to buy it first before they can (really) use it. No record company will take the risk to lose money by only betting on one closed format (DRM'd or not) that the public might or might not adapt.

The exact same thing happened in the IT industry where software companies used to develop in their own proprietary languages, which prevented easy communication between different platforms. Nowadays every large supplier offers open standards for communication with solutions from other brands. Why? Because their customers forced it upon them. And it also gave software suppliers possibilities to further expand their markets.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

Relying on the audiophile press for objective information is tough because they never review something they don't like...that's an exaggeration of course but we all know it's also fairly close to the truth.

 

But there is no reason to believe that Darko said about an Inconvenient Truth MQA Sounds Better is a bald-faced lie, for example. There's no reason why 2L would lie about being able to correct ADC artifacts in MQA. There's no reason why investigating MQA SQ would be waste of time or money.

 

Basically I'm here for the SQ. If MQA brings it, I have the money. Other topics are frankly irrelevant-- such as the philosophical debate on wether or not music should be commercial. If MQA has or is planning on DRM that's not that important to me. If Tidal gets a stranglehold on MQA due to studio collusion then fine.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

Fully agree. If and when MQA sounds better via Tidal than FLAC, why on earth would I complain about it?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[fung0]

Be prepared to be tagged as "a hater" who is simply arguing out of your irrational "feelings"

I'm prepared to be flamed any time I post anything. Rare that I'm disappointed...

I would be interested in your thoughts as to why the "Audiophile Press" has been so pro "recording and distribution industry" and anti-consumer. My working theory is that they are too close to the industry in an effort to gain "access" and too distant from actual consumers - not a conspiracy just a broken system with consequences...

 

You're definitely on the right track. I've worked in the tech press for a lot of years, and I know how easy it is to become absorbed in the point of view of the industries you cover. It's the water you swim in. Always easier and safer to go with the flow, agree what everyone else is saying.

 

With MQA, I think the problem is deeper: an Orwellian conditioning against looking at things from the perspective of consumer rights. We hear endless sermons about 'creators' rights' - and how these must extend to the entire content industry - until it seems sacrilegious to suggest that consumers have rights too.

 

Of course, the goal should be to balance the needs of creators and consumers. Open standards inherently tend to do that - but the corporate worldview isn't about balance, it's about control. The tech press has accepted the industry perspective so completely that the most obvious criticism of MQA never comes up.

 

Many people want to excuse MQA by comparing it to a new product, which consumers can buy or not buy. But MQA isn't a product. It's trying to be a standard - working very hard to win over major players across the entire audio ecosystem. (A year from now, says the company, "major and independent music label groups in Japan, Europe and the USA will be using MQA as an integral part of their business. This is the key...")

 

If it's to have that kind of clout, MQA shouldn't be proprietary any more than Ethernet, USB or 802.11.

[Arg]

Let's apply my patented Truth Test to the issue. Take what Stereophile is saying about any audio topic, then say "What is the exact opposite?", and there's your truth.

 

Stereophile say, "MQA Takes Off Big Time in 2016".

[Vincent1234]

While I do believe the above "fire wall" is exists in practice, and even that the editors/reviewers themselves depend on it, it the case of MQA it has been irrelevant. You ask for "proof" of their anti-consumer, pro-industry bias. The only "proof" I or any other consumer has is in their behavior and writings. They simply do not care to look at MQA from any other angle excepting the industries larger business problems (see Robert Harley's "Master Quality Authenticated (MQA): The View From 30,000 Feet") or from an insular, "sound quality is the ONLY criteria to judge anything" angle perhaps best expressed by John Atkinson himself:

 

"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."

 

When I discussed this issue with John Atkinson himself on the Stereophile blog, he completely dismissed the idea that MQA (or something like it) has any serious ramifications for the consumer at all except sound quality.

 

Heck, I would give them their due if they had been anywhere correct about the SQ aspect but here in the real world it turns out that MQA is not the "birth of a new world" SQ wise. It is at best a modest (even important) tweak in some cases, irrelevant or worse for other recordings.

 

You can go on about "proof" (which is largly irrelavant/not valid when it comes to human motivation) all you want but the proof is in da puddin...

 

It's completely fine to me that you disagree with Robert Harley and John Atkinson on MQA. That's not the issue.

The issue is that you are discrediting the complete audio press based on your personal guesstimations and apparently on this one example, without being able to proof it. That's also the background of Chris's warning to your earlier post.

 

W.r.t. 'which is largly irrelavant/not valid when it comes to human motivation': this sounds to me like a strange argument. Why would proof not be valid when it comes to human motivation? In other words: what allegation can you come up with that does NOT involve 'human motivation'?

 

Again, I'm not trying to defend every person working in the audio press. But I do think you should take more care when accusing people just because they don't share your personal views.

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

I'm prepared to be flamed any time I post anything. Rare that I'm disappointed...

 

 

You're definitely on the right track. I've worked in the tech press for a lot of years, and I know how easy it is to become absorbed in the point of view of the industries you cover. It's the water you swim in. Always easier and safer to go with the flow, agree what everyone else is saying.

 

With MQA, I think the problem is deeper: an Orwellian conditioning against looking at things from the perspective of consumer rights. We hear endless sermons about 'creators' rights' - and how these must extend to the entire content industry - until it seems sacrilegious to suggest that consumers have rights too.

 

Of course, the goal should be to balance the needs of creators and consumers. Open standards inherently tend to do that - but the corporate worldview isn't about balance, it's about control. The tech press has accepted the industry perspective so completely that the most obvious criticism of MQA never comes up.

 

Many people want to excuse MQA by comparing it to a new product, which consumers can buy or not buy. But MQA isn't a product. It's trying to be a standard - working very hard to win over major players across the entire audio ecosystem. (A year from now, says the company, "major and independent music label groups in Japan, Europe and the USA will be using MQA as an integral part of their business. This is the key...")

 

If it's to have that kind of clout, MQA shouldn't be proprietary any more than Ethernet, USB or 802.11.

I understand your concerns but MQA will never be the sole standard in the music industry. See my other post why I think so.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[loop7]

As consumers and music fans, we need to realize that whatever the up-front benefits of MQA, we are not the target customers.

I think you nailed it.

 

Maybe MQA will be enjoyed by consumers, it seems to have some promise, but this could be the a solution for which the archaic thinking music industry has been feverishly awaiting.

[fung0]

I understand your concerns but MQA will never be the sole standard in the music industry.

 

Having "multiple standards" is much the same as having no standards at all.

[Vincent1234]

Having "multiple standards" is much the same as having no standards at all.

Not sure what you mean here?

What I meant is that FLAC, PCM, DSD, MP3 etc. will stay, regardless of MQA being adapted by the industry and the public or not.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[mansr]

Not sure what you mean here?

What I meant is that FLAC, PCM, DSD, MP3 etc. will stay, regardless of MQA being adapted by the industry and the public or not.

 

If the music you want is only available in MQA, it's of little help that other music might exist in a different format.

[Vincent1234]

If the music you want is only available in MQA, it's of little help that other music might exist in a different format.

 

I agree with you on this, but as stated in a previous post I think it's highly unlikely that any music company will choose MQA as their sole format. Business-wise that would be a very stupid decision.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[fung0]

I agree with you on this, but as stated in a previous post I think it's highly unlikely that any music company will choose MQA as their sole format. Business-wise that would be a very stupid decision.

 

Let's hope you're right. But suppose it's not just "any" music company that decides to choose MQA. Suppose it's all of them at once. They already work pretty tightly together. And they'd have lots of good reasons to agree that MQA is better - for them. MQA has been announcing deals with various companies, so they may be on a roll.

 

Which is why strongly opposing MQA right now might our last chance to affect the outcome. If a lot of music fans (like yourself, I presume) are "sort of okay" with MQA, that might be all the encouragement the industry will need.

 

We can hope for the best, but we ought to prepare for the worst. It's not like the music industry has gone out of its way to build up our trust.

[Vincent1234]

Let's hope you're right. But suppose it's not just "any" music company that decides to choose MQA. Suppose it's all of them at once. They already work pretty tightly together. And they'd have lots of good reasons to agree that MQA is better - for them. MQA has been announcing deals with various companies, so they may be on a roll.

 

Which is why strongly opposing MQA right now might our last chance to affect the outcome. If a lot of music fans (like yourself, I presume) are "sort of okay" with MQA, that might be all the encouragement the industry will need.

 

We can hope for the best, but we ought to prepare for the worst. It's not like the music industry has gone out of its way to build up our trust.

 

Of course I also hope I'm right. [emoji4] Neither of us has a crystal ball.

 

Warner already 'chose MQA', which isn't just any company indeed. But that's something completely different than choosing MQA as their sole delivery format. Again, business-wise it would be way too risky and it would also go completely against the technology trend of the last years, that allowed several leading open music formats to coexist. Furthermore MQA right now probably has a hardware market share of what..? Maybe 0,01%?

Even IF it becomes a leading platform: history has proven that closed, proprietary technology has an extremely tough time in the AV market. Think about BluRay; its DRM was supposed to be full-proof but it was hacked within two weeks.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

Back to the "vaporware" discussion. I currently count 496 "MASTER" albums on Tidal. They're still quite short of 30,000 tracks.

[Vincent1234]

Back to the "vaporware" discussion. I currently count 496 "MASTER" albums on Tidal. They're still quite short of 30,000 tracks.

Yes, apparently they are still in the middle of uploading. A few days ago I think about 200 albums were available.

 

Did you already receive your MQA DAC?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[crenca]

It's completely fine to me that you disagree with Robert Harley and John Atkinson on MQA. That's not the issue.

The issue is that you are discrediting the complete audio press based on your personal guesstimations and apparently on this one example, without being able to proof it. That's also the background of Chris's warning to your earlier post.

 

W.r.t. 'which is largly irrelavant/not valid when it comes to human motivation': this sounds to me like a strange argument. Why would proof not be valid when it comes to human motivation? In other words: what allegation can you come up with that does NOT involve 'human motivation'?

 

Again, I'm not trying to defend every person working in the audio press. But I do think you should take more care when accusing people just because they don't share your personal views.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Vincent1234, your getting lost in your own morality tale here. Yes, the personal anti-consumer stance of John Atkinson (I only know it is his personal view because he told me and everyone else who cares to read about it on his own blog - it is a PUBLIC STANCE) does call into question the relevance of his wider work for me or any other consumer - this is just a fact. Why would a consumer of audio products trust what John says about this or that, when he himself admits that the consumer's perspective and concerns are not relevant to his evaluation of MQA? His stance/attitude/philosophy is an important datum for the consumer to consider when thinking about MQA or anything else.

 

No, I do not need to "take more care" for my strong and public consumer oriented stance any more than you need to "take more care" for your confused and confusing stance, or any more than John A. himself needs to "take more care" for his strong pro-industry stance. Your trying to inject a moralism into this discussion that comes from somewhere. I would ask you to explain it but honestly, I am not interested....