MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

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

 

On previous threads I have done my best to explain the place of standards, formats, and the "digital ecosystem" but unfortunately it is seemingly largely lost on the majority of posters here. It has actually helped me understand a bit about the average "audiophile" and consumer of music (and video - really everything digital). This site is called "Computer Audiophile" but in point of fact many (most?) posters don't have a background in IT or some other experience that allows them to easily see the role that standards and formats play in their digital ecosystems (in this case, their "musical" digital ecosystems). Of course, there are many here (particularly those with a technical background - EE, etc.) that understand it right away.

 

What this means of course is that what MQA represents (a fundamental change of format/standard) and the implications of such a thing is difficult to convey - to them it is just another "product" among the other products they already have (such as CD's, Hi Res downloads, etc.). I would welcome your voice in this - sometimes just saying something in another way gets the light bulbs lit up...

[Jud]

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.

 

You mean like CDs?

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.

 

It has taken decades for some of the most widely used software in the world, web browsers, to operate similarly enough that we fairly seldom experience sites that will work with one browser but not another. That was a common occurrence. And there is still a necessity for different versions of software designed to be used with browsers (plugins vs. ActiveX, or whatever they've both evolved into). And there are plenty of other examples, e.g., Java vs. .Net.

 

We came *this close* to having a Balkanized, closed Web, instead of the WWW we've got. I happened to work in an office in the early '90s where the folks next door (dozens of them) were setting up the billing software with which Microsoft was going to charge people for going on the Internet. Then one day Bill decided that wasn't really the way the world was going to work, and he sent a fairly famous letter through the exec levels of the company saying he'd seen the future and the Web wasn't going to be closed off into these little "shopping centers," it was going to be wide open. If Bill hadn't sent that letter, we'd likely still be dealing with the potentially crippling effects of an MS decision to charge for using the Internet, and this site, among many others, would almost certainly not exist. (A week later, all the dozens of folks next door and their office furniture were gone, as if they'd never existed.)

[barrows]

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

 

Maybe... But consider this scenario: Record company guys are deciding whether to release a popular title as hi res (say DSD) for download, instead they release it as MQA. Right there, that is a huge loss for me if it is music I want to have in its best form. I see this decision as being quite likely, if it is not already being made.

[crenca]

...We came *this close* to having a Balkanized, closed Web, instead of the WWW we've got. I happened to work in an office in the early '90s where the folks next door (dozens of them) were setting up the billing software with which Microsoft was going to charge people for going on the Internet. Then one day Bill decided that wasn't really the way the world was going to work, and he sent a fairly famous letter through the exec levels of the company saying he'd seen the future and the Web wasn't going to be closed off into these little "shopping centers," it was going to be wide open. If Bill hadn't sent that letter, we'd likely still be dealing with the potentially crippling effects of an MS decision to charge for using the Internet, and this site, among many others, would almost certainly not exist. (A week later, all the dozens of folks next door and their office furniture were gone, as if they'd never existed.)

 

This is very very important (and this history is FACT - I can't speak to the specifics of Jud's personal experience, but I can speak to the wider situation vis-a-vis standards/formats that the WWW runs on - I was deep in server room in corporate IT at the time), and is directly related to what fung0 says:

 

"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"

[Vincent1234]

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....

 

I'm not getting lost here at all, but I think you still are and you were already.

 

Again: you are and were discrediting the WHOLE audio press, while using as only 'proof' that you don't agree with John Atkinson on his PoV on MQA and God knows what else. That sort of generalization is just silly. Period. To clarify for you in plain English (probably it's needed): 'John Atkinson' does NOT equal 'they'.

 

And maybe, just maybe he's simply right that from his audio press view MQA's SQ is more important than its proprietary nature? After all he's being paid to judge MQA primarily on those SQ merits.

 

You also don't go into my question about your very vague argument that no proof from you is required for allegations when 'human motivation' of the alleged party is involved. It's OK if you don't understand my point..

 

My stance is not a 'moralistic' but a logical one and if it's confusing to you it's because you don't understand. That's fine too. I would like to explain it to you in more detail, but honestly I'm not interested.... [emoji6]

 

Last but not least: you may crown yourself as the King of Consumer Interest here. But that doesn't mean that others who don't slash MQA before it has actually started don't share some healthy skepticism to it too. I for one am one of those people. It's just that you don't seem to understand that the world consists of many, many colors, not just black and white. Not just your opinion against others.

 

Let's agree to disagree; you're keeping me from listening to music too much. [emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[crenca]

I'm not getting lost here at all, but I think you still are and you were already.

 

Again: you are and were discrediting the WHOLE audio press, while using as only 'proof' that you don't agree with John Atkinson on his PoV on MQA and God knows what else. That sort of generalization is just silly. Period. To clarify for you in plain English (probably it's needed): 'John Atkinson' does NOT equal 'they'.

 

And maybe, just maybe he's simply right that from his audio press view MQA's SQ is more important than its proprietary nature? After all he's being paid to judge MQA primarily on those SQ merits.

 

I will just comment on 2 things and let you have the last word. I do think of Stereophile and Absolute Sound as being really really big (perhaps comparable to the NYT and I don't know, CNN or FOX News or whoever is the big cable mouth piece these days). If they don't represent "the WHOLE" they represent enough of it that folks know what I mean when I say "the Audiophile press". Like I said before, of the significant Audiophile Press that I regularly run across, only John Darko and our own Chris have in any way hedged or otherwise qualified their otherwise positive reviews of the SQ of MQA - the rest have been no holds barred promotion machines. When you throw in their complete dismissal of the other aspects (DRM, format, standards, etc.) of MQA it makes them anti-consumer.

 

No, John A is wrong - I don't care how he is being paid a change in our digital music format to a closed/DRM standard is YYUUUUUGGGGEEE as our president would say...

[Jud]

This is very very important (and this history is FACT - I can't speak to the specifics of Jud's personal experience, but I can speak to the wider situation vis-a-vis standards/formats that the WWW runs on - I was deep in server room in corporate IT at the time), and is directly related to what fung0 says:

 

"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"

 

Yes, but...

 

Let's deal with realities, not fears. Of course MQA wants to conquer the world. Lots of companies do. Vanishingly few are successful. Let's do what we can by voting with our dollars, emails, and other forms of communication at our disposal, and by providing *credible* information. Otherwise the people you want to communicate with will dismiss you as hysterical.

 

Remember, Bill sent that letter after figuring out he could make *more* money from an open Web. The companies involved here would surely be responsive to a credible explanation that a more open market for music would be *more* profitable.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Samuel T Cogley]

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?

 

I will have it later today. Perhaps a nit, but the CES announcement said nothing like, "30,000 tracks, but be patient, it will take some time to upload". The CES announcement said unambiguously that 30,000 MQA tracks are now available on Tidal.

[Vincent1234]

I will just comment on 2 things and let you have the last word. I do think of Stereophile and Absolute Sound as being really really big (perhaps comparable to the NYT and I don't know, CNN or FOX News or whoever is the big cable mouth piece these days). If they don't represent "the WHOLE" they represent enough of it that folks know what I mean when I say "the Audiophile press". Like I said before, of the significant Audiophile Press that I regularly run across, only John Darko and our own Chris have in any way hedged or otherwise qualified their otherwise positive reviews of the SQ of MQA - the rest have been no holds barred promotion machines. When you throw in their complete dismissal of the other aspects (DRM, format, standards, etc.) of MQA it makes them anti-consumer.

 

No, John A is wrong - I don't care how he is being paid a change in our digital music format to a closed/DRM standard is YYUUUUUGGGGEEE as our president would say...

 

It's all fine. [emoji4] I have the impression now that at least you get my point.

I have just asked dCS when my Rossini will be able to fully decode MQA (via Tidal). Only then I will make up my mind on its SQ merits and I will be completely honest to you about my impressions. I don't 'need' MQA at all and I'm pretty skeptical, specifically compared to high-quality DSD recordings, of which I have several hundreds. But I am really curious how it compares nonetheless. And please allow me to trust my ears more than any well-intentioned scope-watching. [emoji6] As long as MQA will be no more than 'one of several choices' (which I expect for reasons already discussed) I will not be worried about consumer interest. To be continued.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

...and our own Chris have in any way hedged or otherwise qualified their otherwise positive reviews of the SQ of MQA - the rest have been no holds barred promotion machines

 

At the risk of being accused of sycophancy myself, I will say that Chris appears to try really hard to walk that line between pro-consumer and pro-vendor.

[mansr]

At the risk of being accused of sycophancy myself, I will say that Chris appears to try really hard to walk that line between pro-consumer and pro-vendor.

Or he tries really hard to appear to walk that line. He's been just a little too dismissive of people's concerns and simultaneously a little too trusting of the official line from Stuart and his PR department.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Or he tries really hard to appear to walk that line. He's been just a little too dismissive of people's concerns and simultaneously a little too trusting of the official line from Stuart and his PR department.

 

I think we live in an era of "access journalism" and Chris has to appear to be "friendly" to the PR campaign. I stand by my original statement. I've never seen him dismiss out of hand concerns about the DRM aspects of MQA.

[Vincent1234]

You mean like CDs?

 

Hahah, indeed. [emoji6] But that was 35 years ago. You will probably agree with me that especially in the last years the music industry has seen some tremendous changes.

 

Nice story about the www, by the way. I myself work at SAP and I have seen some pretty big changes there too. [emoji4]

 

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Jud]

Or he tries really hard to appear to walk that line. He's been just a little too dismissive of people's concerns and simultaneously a little too trusting of the official line from Stuart and his PR department.

 

I think he believes what he says; that he has liked what he's heard of MQA; but he is ready to take in any other good information he can find (such as, for example, your test results).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Vincent1234]

Yes, but...

 

Let's deal with realities, not fears. Of course MQA wants to conquer the world. Lots of companies do. Vanishingly few are successful. Let's do what we can by voting with our dollars, emails, and other forms of communication at our disposal, and by providing *credible* information. Otherwise the people you want to communicate with will dismiss you as hysterical.

 

Remember, Bill sent that letter after figuring out he could make *more* money from an open Web. The companies involved here would surely be responsive to a credible explanation that a more open market for music would be *more* profitable.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

Couldn't agree more and it also relates to my earlier post on similar developments in the software industry.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[crenca]

Yes, but...

 

Let's deal with realities, not fears. Of course MQA wants to conquer the world. Lots of companies do. Vanishingly few are successful. Let's do what we can by voting with our dollars, emails, and other forms of communication at our disposal, and by providing *credible* information. Otherwise the people you want to communicate with will dismiss you as hysterical.

 

Remember, Bill sent that letter after figuring out he could make *more* money from an open Web. The companies involved here would surely be responsive to a credible explanation that a more open market for music would be *more* profitable.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

This has me thinking about the music market. They want closed format/DRM because they look at $video$ and tell themselves "That's our model!". Ironically, they over weigh "piracy" and under weigh consumer behavior (who are now more interested in their screens than their music) as the source of their problems (large drop in $sales$).

 

Bandcamp says that the majority (I have 70% in my head) of their customers download the mp3 instead of the 16/44, even though the latter is the same price. Thus, the industry understands perfectly well that it is not about sound quality and thus a closed format/DRM (MQA or something like it) market has no cost to them. Bill saw that a balkinized web would cost him real $. They might be right about the music market in that a closed market does NOT cost the $...depressing to think about

[Vincent1234]

Or he tries really hard to appear to walk that line. He's been just a little too dismissive of people's concerns and simultaneously a little too trusting of the official line from Stuart and his PR department.

 

'Too dismissive' and 'too trusting'... according to you? It's fine to have your own opinion, but that's just what it is. Your opinion.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

This has me thinking about the music market. They want closed format/DRM because they look at $video$ and tell themselves "That's our model!". Ironically, they over weigh "piracy" and under weigh consumer behavior (who are now more interested in their screens than their music) as the source of their problems (large drop in $sales$).

 

Bandcamp says that the majority (I have 70% in my head) of their customers download the mp3 instead of the 16/44, even though the latter is the same price. Thus, the industry understands perfectly well that it is not about sound quality and thus a closed format/DRM (MQA or something like it) market has no cost to them. Bill saw that a balkinized web would cost him real $. They might be right about the music market in that a closed market does NOT cost the $...depressing to think about

 

The "elephant in the room" is the target demographic for HiFi. Your Bandcamp observation nails it. There aren't enough new audiophiles to replace the ones we're losing. Tidal (to the best of my knowledge) is not currently profitable. There's your best indicator of how successful MQA will ultimately be. Or for that matter, HDTracks or audiophile Redbook remasters. Mofi and Audio Fidelity are all but extinct.

[Vincent1234]

Maybe... But consider this scenario: Record company guys are deciding whether to release a popular title as hi res (say DSD) for download, instead they release it as MQA. Right there, that is a huge loss for me if it is music I want to have in its best form. I see this decision as being quite likely, if it is not already being made.

 

That's a valid concern. But it's hard to predict already now how valid exactly it is..

 

For now I would be very surprised if a record company would make such a decision. Maybe as a sort of MQA try-out/promotion. But we've seen that before and in the end music will likely be distributed in multiple formats, because that way the company will simply make more money.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

That's a valid concern. But it's hard to predict already now how valid exactly it is..

 

For now I would be very surprised if a record company would make such a decision. Maybe as a sort of MQA try-out/promotion. But we've seen that before and in the end music will likely be distributed in multiple formats, because that way the company will simply make more money.

 

+1

 

The current MQA promotional rollout is likely not increasing demand for Tidal HiFi subscriptions, at least appreciably. But Meridian sold at least one new DAC because of it. :-)

[Vincent1234]

The "elephant in the room" is the target demographic for HiFi. Your Bandcamp observation nails it. There aren't enough new audiophiles to replace the ones we're losing. Tidal (to the best of my knowledge) is not currently profitable. There's your best indicator of how successful MQA will ultimately be. Or for that matter, HDTracks or audiophile Redbook remasters. Mofi and Audio Fidelity are all but extinct.

Fair point! So, back to my trusted LP12..! [emoji1]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

+1

 

The current MQA promotional rollout is likely not increasing demand for Tidal HiFi subscriptions, at least appreciably. But Meridian sold at least one new DAC because of it. :-)

 

Really curious about your first MQA SQ impressions! [emoji4]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[jhwalker]

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

 

There are over 500 albums featured on the front page, under the "Masters" section. But for every one of those, there are several more available in Master quality that are not featured - I've found lots of them myself.

 

Their announcement was that they were "live" with 30k tracks, and I see no reason to doubt that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Samuel T Cogley]

There are over 500 albums featured on the front page, under the "Masters" section. But for every one of those, there are several more available in Master quality that are not featured - I've found lots of them myself.

 

Their announcement was that they were "live" with 30k tracks, and I see no reason to doubt that.

 

Ok, the "MASTERS" section is not definitive. Thanks for this. I will look further. I'm not a fan at all of that Tidal desktop app. I wish Roon would hurry up with 1.3.

 

EDIT: Wow! Almost everything I've been waiting for is there. You just have to wade through all the different versions of the same title. Tidal needs to put a little icon on the MQA versions or something. Thanks again!

[Vincent1234]

For those using dCS Vivaldi or Rossini DAC's this is the answer I received just now from dCS to my question when we can expect these devices to be able to fully decode MQA:

"We are working on an MQA solution, but I do not have a date on which we will be adding this feature."

So, we will need to be a little patient..

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app