MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

21 minutes ago, GUTB said:

This isn't a simple compression mechanism, it's trying to rebuild a picture of the original's timing cues

In other words, "there's more to MQA than you think" or something to that effect. Another parroting of Bob-speak.

 

21 minutes ago, GUTB said:

the final unfold applying the remaining timing corrections.

Would that be a second "unfold" (read: upsampling with lousy filters), or are you referring to some mythical third unfold, in which MQA certified hardware can literally birth a new world, causing a veritable revolution in audio.

 

21 minutes ago, GUTB said:

This is what I gathered from the various interviews.

Who was interviewed, Bob Stuart? We're back to pure marketing-speak, again. A broken record.

 

What, did they toss you a free Dragonfly Cobalt or something?

[MikeyFresh]

5 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

How is it hard to believe?  Everything after the first unfold has always been upsampling to get back to the source sample rate.

Exactly, it's not hard to believe at all.

 

13 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Will it that’s true, MQA have some explanations to do.

But they won't, that pattern was long ago established.

 

15 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Cause there isn’t anything to unfold.

You got it.

 

8 hours ago, GUTB said:

I only care about the sonic benefits. Don't you care about the sonic benefits?

What sonic benefits? Have you had a moment to look into that McGill study?

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Setting aside whether or not MQA sounds better, it seems that everyone who has actually listened to MQA through a MQA DAC reports that it can sound very different.

False. See the McGill study.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

As Jim Austin -- a PhD in physics -- over at Stereophile commented that the only way to test the time domain claims is with the participation of MQA Ltd.

Oooh, a call to authority. Maybe with Jim and MQA's help we can birth a new world too.

[MikeyFresh]

51 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I do not have any MQA music and I do not have any MQA equipment.  I will never have MQA music and I will never have MQA equipment.

Hear, hear... if everyone did this MQA would swiftly perish.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Well, you've responded to all listener critiques with citing this McGill study.

No I have not. However I've suggested that you need to give it consideration, and understand why your having bought an MQA enabled DAC (you are personally invested in MQA), and also bought into a bunch of pure BS marketing-speak from an entity that stands to benefit financially from this scheme (Uncle Bob and co.), and your quoting of the perceived higher authority of Jim Austin et al. means you've drank a healthy dose of the Kool aid, your expectation bias likely now drives what it is you think MQA sounds like.

 

But I'm not expecting much from you here GUTB, your past posts on this board and your recent dismissal of Archimago's very well informed/written 3rd party opinion on MQA that has never been successfully refuted or rebutted in any way, means you are very likely a lost cause. Ditto your infamous and fully uninformed stance on Class D amplification, as if all such designs are the very same thing, and equally bad. Thats scary dogma and willingness to retreat to a comfort zone supported by the old guard audio press.

 

So I expect you'll reject the McGill study too, but not by means of any informed or competent critique/rebuttal.

 

I now return you to the Ignored member list.

[MikeyFresh]

23 hours ago, GUTB said:

Setting aside the question of MQA's efficacy, I think it's pretty obvious it's here to stay.

Except it isn't, in fact the entire current business model of streaming is not guaranteed to stay, those that report financials clearly lose huge money every single quarter, including Spotify who has the largest paid subscriber base. While the labels love it, they are the only ones making money, the streaming services do not and the artists aren't exactly pleased either. That appears unsustainable in its current form.

Given MQA's only current delivery method is the money losing Tidal (unless you are counting the stillborn MQA-CD which GUTB might be), I'd say there is no proof at all that it's here to stay.

 

On 12/26/2020 at 8:13 PM, GUTB said:

Outside of MQA, the only options are going to be the usual players: audiophile labels

 

So the GUTB crystal ball sees download services such as HDtracks being forced to shut down due to MQA?

 

On 12/26/2020 at 8:13 PM, GUTB said:

MQA isn't going to impact the audiophile labels, they're still going to be releasing very high-res audio in all consumer formats even if they add MQA to their catalogues

That same GUTB crystal ball indicates the labels would continue to approve hi-rez releases "in all formats"? Not if their greedy accountant/lawyer top execs have their way. What are the formats (plural) you refer to? If they killed the standard Redbook streams in favor of lossy MQA-CD, what makes you think they would continue releasing actual Redbook CD media at all?

 

On 12/26/2020 at 8:13 PM, GUTB said:

So really nothing's going to change.

 

You just parroted the stance of the main stream audio press, including right here in this very thread several years ago. That is of course exactly what the labels and MQA want everyone to think, while they slowly quietly eliminate consumer choice.

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

The labels are the ones who will decide if and how they release their catalogues for hi-res.

Actually depending on the exact contract language in place, it is often the label in tandem with the artist, a good contract prohibits the label from doing anything without the artist's approval. Unfortunately many artists did not have good representation and signed a bad contract.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

If there was no MQA there's no reason to believe they'd start releasing lossless hi-res when that technology has been around and in very wide usage for many years before MQA came out. So, in reality, MQA provides more choices by enticing the labels to release their catalogues in a hi-res format.

False, and more parroting of the audio press. The labels long ago released a very wide range of their titles on hi-rez, not only on physical media such as SACD and DVD-Audio, but then on a much greater scale with downloads. Those same transfers are available on Qobuz right now without any MQA crap. This idea that MQA enables some larger swath of records to be issued as hi-rez is total bullshit. No one needs MQA for that, it was already happening en masse without MQA. Further, MQA is not hi-rez.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Let's say MQA is just snakeoil -- the big labels weren't going to release their catalogues in hi-res ANYWAY so what difference does it make if MQA comes along and ends up being no different than CD-quality?

Because the labels were in fact releasing hi-rez, and the only pause there is if their accountants and lawyers are told of a manner they can do that that cheats the customer while enriching the label, they'll go for that instead of actual hi-rez downloads, or even reissued CD-quality albums.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

The audiophile labels won't care because their market is small but dedicated and big spenders. If they have these giant MQA catalogues which allows them to market them as hi-res with the bandwidth of regular CD audio, I don't imagine they'll just abandon them without trying to make money off them.

They won't, because the audiophile labels know that MQA is complete BS, they wouldn't stake their reputation on such garbage. They wouldn't be able to market it as hi-rez when they already do the real thing, only in the fantasy land of magazines and gear manufacturers/dealers is MQA considered hi-rez. Why do you think audiophile labels care about that bogus claim that MQA delivers hi-rez with "the bandwidth of regular CD audio"? the audiophile labels don't engage in anything currently that makes bandwidth important to them, and it's a false claim anyway, regular FLAC is just as good at bandwidth savings, and if it were not already completely moot, it will be shortly with the agent of 5g.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

So what's the solution?

Don't play their game or support their bad greedy decision in any way. Don't buy any MQA hardware (too late for GUTB), don't stream any MQA track versions, in fact, don't subscribe to Tidal at all. That sends the message with the wallet, and it will be heard loud and clear.

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, GUTB said:

So....what hardware and albums did you use to evaluate MQA again?

Duurrrr, when you start your MQA listening impressions thread, I'll be sure not to post in it, because I will never own or use MQA anything.

 

McGill study too deep I take it? Must be, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to turn this into a subjective sound quality discussion, which none of us are interested in at all. That too is parroting the mainstream audio press, and just like them, that's all you've got.

[MikeyFresh]

28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Anyway, why didn’t someone then create what MQA does a long time ago ?

Upsampling with leaky MP filters? That is old news.

 

28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Are they all idiots or ?

No, but they are helping the record labels impose DRM.

 

28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Why do “we” here at AS know better ?

It's not just we here, various other credible sources including Archimago's blog tell the exact same story, as do various well regarded manufacturers including (but not limited to) Benchmark, Linn, and EXOGAL. Why would you (or anyone really) trust Bob Stuart's word more than theirs?

 

Those above mentioned companies (and many others that simply skipped MQA without giving it word one of credibility or official consideration) are far more successful over the decades than BS's own Meridian ever was. No comparison actually.

 

I think the real question is why do YOU wish to so blindly trust Bob Stuart as some sort of audio god that not only knows all, but knows it better than everyone else?

[MikeyFresh]

30 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

So what would be a clever way to get rid of MQA ?

Everyone boycott Tidal, and Warner Music, and any vendor peddling MQA hardware products.

[MikeyFresh]

27 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Seen as MQA is tiny when it comes to streaming if you take on board Spotify / Apple and behemoth Amazon, the issue isn’t Tidal the bigger issue is all the ground work has been done behind the scenes with the record companies buying into MQA ltd using Tidal as their test bench. If Tidal disappeared tomorrow I think the damage could already be done as the back catalogue could be processed as MQA and fed to all “lossless” companies as the only alternative keeping the revenue flowing. 

Let us hope that is not the case, and in the meantime, perhaps their little experiment would be halted if the dollars start to vanish both from Tidal, and/or the licensing from MQA hardware vendors. Boycotting that might put enough of a dent for the record labels to think twice.

[MikeyFresh]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If I had to guess, I'd say Tidal is paying MQA between zero and $1 total. 

You're probably right, but still, money talks, and if it came to be that Tidal were purchased by Square for instance, then perhaps a flight of subscribers would be enough to persuade Tidal to undock their ship from MQA.

 

I'd also like to think hardware license revenue doesn't amount to much either, you'd think those manufacturers would have been smart enough to know MQA needs them worse than they need MQA, and driven a hard deal that produces next to nothing for MQA per unit sold. But if that were true, then a shunning of those manufacturers may not produce the desired result, if implementing MQA isn't costing them very much right now.

 

Lastly there would be the labels themselves, it originally looked like MQA thought they'd be charging the labels for the MQA encoding, but at least initially, that payment came in the reverse form of MQA giving equity to the labels, so I'm not sure at what point the labels would wish to consider shifting revenue to MQA itself, knowing they are part owners, or walking away if the big payday they were promised never materializes.

 

That's why I agree with @KeenObserver, boycott Warner, hit them in the pocketbook, and if you must stream a Warner artist, only do so if a non-MQA stream is available to you. If not, buy the CD, even if a used copy.

 

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

13 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

I’m not sure boycotts will help.

They help, money talks.

 

14 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Is it realistic to have more interviews with Bob when situations allow for it, and will it help ?

No.

 

14 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Has all questions been asked ?

Yes. Read the thread as @KeenObserversuggested.

 

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, whether it's BB or BS, they never tell a straight or complete story. Giving them more space to talk is only beneficial to them, not consumers. 

Well said.

 

[MikeyFresh]

23 minutes ago, GUTB said:

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors

False claim, research it instead of parroting Bob or the press.

 

24 minutes ago, GUTB said:

What non-MQA process can do this?

Do what, more harm? 

 

23 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

If this was the case then all recordings studios would be using it, in professional terms it’s a non starter 

Exactly, and this has been backed by measurements, MQA actually does more harm than good in this regard. 

 

Do your homework GUTB, you prove nothing by regurgitating MQA's bullshit marketing speak.

[MikeyFresh]

16 minutes ago, botrytis said:

This has been disproven by people, in this thread, and have shown it actually makes it worse. It also adds more noise and ringing. So, in point of fact, MQA does nothing at they say except line their pockets.

Well said, either GUTB has poor reading comprehension, or hasn't read much of anything at all, either here or in Archimago's blog which also covered this topic and has never been rebutted in any way.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

I responded to a comment that nothing MQA claims to do can't be done by a non-proprietary format.

You responded by regurgitating BS marketing speak that has been debunked both here and elsewhere. Thats a poor response.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

I suggest that I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

I suggest you are that one, if you had read and comprehended either this thread or Archimago's blog then you would no longer parrot the BS marketing speak or the audio press.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

As for Archimago's hobby horse, I'll get around to see what he's been up to.

"Get around to it"? You are already quite late, his initial piece was written there in January 2015. Since then there have been very detailed follow-up pieces never rebutted by MQA nor the audio press in any way, I believe 14 in all.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Maybe I'll give him a detailed response and see what he comes up with this time.

I guarantee that won't happen. If both Bob Stuart and MQA et al. couldn't provide any rebuttal, nor could the lame stream audio press, there's no way you can either. Thats because there is no credible rebuttal, it doesn't exist, if it did they would have used it already, right?

 

This link is a good place to start your research, it contains links to all of the other pieces except the final two. You might also go back through this very thread using the search function, various very valuable enlightening contributions here from mansr, FredericV, and others.

I'm talking about actual measurements that are repeatable, if they weren't, clearly it would behoove MQA to have raised an official objection, right? But they haven't, and never will.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

25 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Yes correct. I meant what the purported resolution is.

Yes but that's just the 2nd unfold, after the 3rd unfold a revolution in digital audio occurs, and subsequently, whole new worlds are birthed.

 

I'm told BS is working on a new version of origami in which a 4th unfold transports you to an alternate universe, one in which you hear music with no air causing any time smear.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

Come 2021 the 5th unfold could arrive whereby you could be consumed by a black hole to arrive at another non smeared timeline were you can get the original first master tape fingerprinted to suit MQA filters 🤪🤪

 

Yes, I'm told late 2021 for that 5th unfold, as it includes a time travel aspect that will allow MQA to retrieve the first gen. master tapes lost in the Universal Music Group archive fire of 2008!

 

All of the UMG artists have signed on for the 5th unfold, as it was never their intention for those tapes to have perished, and now MQA will authenticate them on a make-good basis in a huge win for consumers.

 

In a related announcement, Meridian revealed plans for MQA-5U DAC availability in Q4 of '21. The ADC manufacturers have declined comment, fueling speculation they too are on board.

[MikeyFresh]

46 minutes ago, GUTB said:

It's funny as soon as Archimago's slide comes up they immediately try to get Chris to admit that Archimago is "just a guy on the Internet".

Funny? That's not funny, that's a highly defensive and unprofessional reaction, and one that attempts to change the narrative while simultaneously refusing to address the slide presented. A panicked attempt to alter the topic of conversation. They showed their true colors right there.

 

Admit? You make that sound like there was some sort of guilt or wrongdoing. I think you mean they stated something rather obvious, and tried to attach inappropriate conjecture or innuendo as to the actual validity or conclusions that can be drawn.

 

As Chris stated above, notice how they can't or won't address the actual content being presented, no use of actual rebuttal or straight out refuting the verifiable facts. Jbara's behavior is particularly pathetic, he's supposed to be a fucking CEO publicly representing a brand/product?  

 

Any CEO I've ever met or observed came far better prepared, and far more informed and thus able to represent their brand or product's efficacy. That's why CEOs tend to be smart and well compensated, they are able to think on the fly and remain professional and composed, grace under pressure. Evidently Jbara's job function is much different, and really just amounts to leveraging his past ties to Warner Music Group.

 

GUTB your playbook with regard to this thread is not dissimilar to that of Lee Scoggins, all this time later, the same BS is getting regurgitated all over again. Even though you wanna be "influencers" have displayed a very weak game, the same themes seem to resurface and the same "change the subject" game plan employed despite the past abject failure of such.

[MikeyFresh]

34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes. He was toward the back making absurd comments like a petulant child. 

With LS seated cozily right near him.

 

Jbara gets on the mic and rudely interrupts at the 15:36 mark with the bullshit accusation of Chris not being "transparent". Oddly he parrots Ken Forsythe at that point, as if KF knows jack shit or had made some cogent point just prior. That's a CEO?

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Phil Baker said:

Neil Young removes his music from Tidal.

https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Tidal-Misleading-Listeners

and refers to this forum

I absolutely LOVE that a famous artist has taken this public stance, and I hope he can encourage more artists to do the same.

 

The problem is not all of the artists actually own their masters or have complete control over what happens, due to their representation having allowed them to sign bad contracts with the labels originally.

[MikeyFresh]

24 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Anyway, it surprises me that Neil Young apparently doesn't have a say in the distribution of his albums to Tidal in MQA format (by Reprise/Warner?) yet he has the power to remove his albums from Tidal altogether (not all albums, the titles from the Geffen label are still available on Tidal as redbook). He seems to think/suggest that Tidal did the MQA conversion which of course can't be true..

I was thinking the same thing, why would Warner Music Group be able to remaster his work without his permission, yet he can then just remove that from TIDAL? Seems strange.

[MikeyFresh]

I see a new tact taken by iFi, or at least by reviewer Greg Weaver aka The Audio Analyst in a YouTube piece he did on the iDSD Pro from January 3rd.

 

In a 20+ minute review (for the life of me I have no idea why this is a video review), he makes exactly zero mentions of MQA anything. None, zilch, unless I somehow became momentarily distracted right at some critical moment where the MQA mention occurs.

 

What's interesting and different is that the focus is on iFi's Gibbs Transient Optimized (GTO) filter, which was not only shown on this very forum to be a total piece of crap in March 2019, but it was also described, at least at that time, as "minimum phase-like", and "was developed by iFi according to our specifications in conjunction with the MQA team."

 

So this would appear to be a new angle someone was trying to take, either the reviewer didn't want the typical negative avalanche that would likely ensue with yet another obligatory MQA love fest review, or perhaps he was asked to take that tact by iFi, and they are growing weary of the negative connotation that MQA carries and attaches itself to their products.

 

I guess it could also just be another stealth slip-in of something MQA, they wait for others to chime in favoring this lousy GTO filter, and then they say "HA! that's MQA you are listening to there" or something to that effect.

 

Lastly, in the comments section it is mentioned that legendary design engineer John Curl has been working on all AMR and iFi designs since August 2019. While I doubt that has an ounce of anything to do with MQA, I wonder what that means about Thorsten Loesch? Is he no longer with AMR/iFi?

 

[MikeyFresh]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I wouldn’t want them washing my car. I can see it now, “that scratch was there before you came in” “you never said don’t use sandpaper” etc...

"You can barely see that scratch, it is perceptually lossless".

[MikeyFresh]

9 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

I don't know, it's better not to waste time making up a story.

With all due respect, this not a court of law in which the OP or anyone else owes us proof of something, otherwise it is assumed to be false or a "story".

 

Take what he says at face value, or not, but accusing people of telling stories quickly moves in the direction of demands for "proof or it didn't happen". He owes you no such burden of proof.