MQA is Vaporware

[Digital Assassin]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Who is colluding and committing fraud with respect to MQA? if you're talking politics, I understand, but let's keep that out of the MQA discussion.

Yes, sir I am talking both..first..politics..perhaps address the poster above?

 

Second: Yes MQA has fraudulently marketed their product. The only thing true about it is that it does fold down higher sampling rates to a smaller container. Everything else is a marketing lie.

Collusion: with the audio press and currently with mastering engineers being recruited as "reps".

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Digital Assassin said:

Yes, sir I am talking both..first..politics..perhaps address the poster above?

 

Second: Yes MQA has fraudulently marketed their product. The only thing true about it is that it does fold down higher sampling rates to a smaller container. Everything else is a marketing lie.

Collusion: with the audio press and currently with mastering engineers being recruited as "reps".

 

I hear you, but wouldn't stretch it that far. MQA has some wiggle room :~)

 

I hope the press was just clueless rather than colluding, but that doesn't help the end result.

[Digital Assassin]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I hear you, but wouldn't stretch it that far. MQA has some wiggle room :~)

 

I hope the press was just clueless rather than colluding, but that doesn't help the end result.

So...would does it seem credible on any level that tenured for decades editors of the only two US remaining audiophile print magazines are clueless? One who markets himself as an electronics engineer, a recording engineer, a musician, and who has measured thousands of components and speakers...clueless?

 

Or buttering the bread. I don't mind at all defending colleagues, and providing counterpoints, all sides need to make their points, but....

 

[PeterSt]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

MQA is really its evil twin AQM.  Authenticated Quality Missing.

 

Make that Missile.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

37 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

 

 

Second: Yes MQA has fraudulently marketed their product. The only thing true about it is that it does fold down higher sampling rates to a smaller container. Everything else is a marketing lie.

 

If that is so clear and obvious, where is your lawsuit?  Or, how do you spell c-l-a-s-s a-c-t-i-o-n?

[Digital Assassin]

2 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

If that is so clear and obvious, where is your lawsuit?  Or, how do you spell c-l-a-s-s a-c-t-i-o-n?

No lawsuit required. This steaming turd will collapse under it's own weight.

 

Bob Stuart has failed at every other endeavor, this will follow suit. Unless his rich in iaws

gives him a few more million pounds.

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

So...would does it seem credible on any level that tenured for decades editors of the only two US remaining audiophile print magazines are clueless? One who markets himself as an electronics engineer, a recording engineer, a musician, and who has measured thousands of components and speakers...clueless?

 

Or buttering the bread. I don't mind at all defending colleagues, and providing counterpoints, all sides need to make their points, but....

 

 

I hear ya. 

[Digital Assassin]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I hear ya. 

Not to mention, they, and all the other MQA Evangelists in the press have been provided with all the links, info, and discussions about MQA from readers dismayed about their coverage. So pleading clueless is a non starter.

 

This is what happens when you claim to serve consumers but are really manufacturer-centric.

 

Maybe I am off the mark, but you seem here to strike a perfect balance. The very fact you have these forums means you understand that consumers must be served. I don't know of any other audiophile publication, virtual, or print, that has this much exchange of information. I thank you.

[Rt66indierock]

10 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Not too long ago you could find threads here on CA about people fussing over the parameters for iZotope sample rate conversion, with tiny fractions of changes allegedly responsible for massive changes in sound. These threads were all the more funny because many of these people did not even understand what the parameters meant, and how illegal/invalid many of the filters they generated were. But blacks were blackerder, veils were lifted and then removed totally, the musicians were here and the listeners were there, over and over again, that much closer to the true sound.

 

 

 

Now that I’ve stopped laughing, I’ve listened to systems that reproduce ultrasonic sounds and I prefer a 20 kHz filter similar the one used in the Kuribayashi, Yamamoto & Nittono study to cut them off. At the bass end I can’t hear anything below 24 Hz. I can detect lower frequencies but the effect is unpleasant so I don’t want them reproduced.

 

I don’t like the effects on me of ultrasonic sound whether it is created by welding equipment or crash cymbals so I want it filtered out. Sorry no blackness mumbo jumbo or magic improvements to the sound.

[mcgillroy]

27 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

Not to mention, they, and all the other MQA Evangelists in the press have been provided with all the links, info, and discussions about MQA from readers dismayed about their coverage. So pleading clueless is a non starter.

 

This is what happens when you claim to serve consumers but are really manufacturer-centric.

 

Maybe I am off the mark, but you seem here to strike a perfect balance. The very fact you have these forums means you understand that consumers must be served. I don't know of any other audiophile publication, virtual, or print, that has this much exchange of information. I thank you.

 

 

This is an important observation and one of the most interesting collateral's of the whole MQA story: both the marketers at MQA as well as the established audio-press have miscalculated and underestimated their audience.

 

Their skill-set over almost two full decades was honed by selling cables and other tweaks. Lot's of clicks and good ad-money in these and not least no realistic way to "objectively" assess the effects of such products.

 

Digital audio is different though. Turns out it was naive to think MQA would be just another tweak, good click-bait and an easy sell. Add hyperbolic marketing and all to obvious DRM-aspect and you suddenly have a technically capable, critical audience from across the globe breathing down your neck.

 

May Mr. Atkinson cry as much as he wants about forum-anonymity, with his unabashed endorsement of MQA he himself lured a competent peer-review fact-checking crowd into his backyard that won't go away easily.

 

MQA might stay or go, but it's the independent online audio-press that benefited most from this episode. The backyard eventually might become the main thing and then you can thank MQA for it.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

If that is so clear and obvious, where is your lawsuit?  Or, how do you spell c-l-a-s-s a-c-t-i-o-n?

 

Not going to happen. 

 

MQA's revenue stream isn't even enough to pay the lawyers let alone any damages suffered by the few folks who have purchased or streamed music in this format. 

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

 

 

This is an important observation and one of the most interesting collateral's of the whole MQA story: both the marketers at MQA as well as the established audio-press have miscalculated and underestimated their audience.

 

Their skill-set over almost two full decades was honed by selling cables and other tweaks. Lot's of clicks and good ad-money in these and not least no realistic way to "objectively" assess the effects of such products.

 

Digital audio is different though. Turns out it was naive to think MQA would be just another tweak, good click-bait and an easy sell. Add hyperbolic marketing and all to obvious DRM-aspect and you suddenly have a technically capable, critical audience from across the globe breathing down your neck.

 

May Mr. Atkinson cry as much as he wants about forum-anonymity, with his unabashed endorsement of MQA he himself lured a competent peer-review fact-checking crowd into his backyard that won't go away easily.

 

MQA might stay or go, but it's the independent online audio-press that benefited most from this episode. The backyard eventually might become the main thing and then you can thank MQA for it.

 

Well stated, however I think it is important to remember that there are at least two categories of "Audiophile":

 

1)  The traditional 2 channel guy who has $money$ but no electronic, engineering, digital background and to which you can sell $5k USB and CAT cables to (to say nothing of boxes of rocks).  This guy is likely to be subjectivist because what else can he be - he understands to some degree what he does not understand.

 

2)  The younger, largely "personal audio" guy who has less money, is more likely to have passed calculus, programmed something, or worked in the server room (or even set up his home network) and who is ad/marketing adverse, skeptical of theory and trusting of physics.  He is more likely to be balanced or an outright objectivist

 

The traditional audiophile press serves only #1, and does very little (other than "sounds like" reviews and new product announcement) for #2.  #1 is an aging and shrinking demographic - although because high end is also "life style" product for the rich and famous it is also expanding.  #2 is an expanding (how much is debated) and is the majority future.  The audio press and the entire "high end" industry is however wholly dependent on #1 because that is where the real money is - selling things for orders of magnitude their actual cost of goods/manufacture/distribution/etc.

 

The traditional press/industry knows the gravy train can't last forever, and are actively courting #2.  However, look how they are doing it - witness the "Jana Dagdagan" phenomenon over at Stereophile (i.e. hiring smart, young, pretty girl and see what happens) and recent efforts of so many traditional brands to offer some overpriced HP amp of some sort.  However, even traditional #2 manufacturers can't help themselves and are pressing personal audio prices up and up with ever more ethereal, "subjectivist" offerings such as HP's in the 6-50K range.

 

Also, while Atkinson is an electronics guy of some capability he is not a digital/computer/software guy as such (MQA is first and formost software), though I have noticed he has learned a thing or two through this MQA debacle.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Digital Assassin said:

Maybe I am off the mark, but you seem here to strike a perfect balance. The very fact you have these forums means you understand that consumers must be served. I don't know of any other audiophile publication, virtual, or print, that has this much exchange of information. I thank you.

 

Hi DA - Thanks for the kind words.

 

It's no secret that I feed my family from advertising income generated from CA. However, without putting the CA Community and readers / consumers first, there is no advertising income and there is no CA. For the most part ad prices are based on the amount of traffic a site receives. It's in my best interest to serve consumers and hope the income follows. It never turns out well for those who mix up the order of who is most important in this type of business. 

 

I could go on and on about this, but I hope my point is clear. It's just not worth it for me to chase advertising dollars by catering to manufacturers and putting the CA Community second. It also feels gross to think about running a business with those priorities mixed up. 

 

P.S. There are some very cool companies who totally understand this. They realize a stronger independent community is better for them than a site that is in their pocket. I enjoy working with these companies. 

[Digital Assassin]

2 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

 

 

This is an important observation and one of the most interesting collateral's of the whole MQA story: both the marketers at MQA as well as the established audio-press have miscalculated and underestimated their audience.

 

Their skill-set over almost two full decades was honed by selling cables and other tweaks. Lot's of clicks and good ad-money in these and not least no realistic way to "objectively" assess the effects of such products.

 

Digital audio is different though. Turns out it was naive to think MQA would be just another tweak, good click-bait and an easy sell. Add hyperbolic marketing and all to obvious DRM-aspect and you suddenly have a technically capable, critical audience from across the globe breathing down your neck.

 

May Mr. Atkinson cry as much as he wants about forum-anonymity, with his unabashed endorsement of MQA he himself lured a competent peer-review fact-checking crowd into his backyard that won't go away easily.

 

MQA might stay or go, but it's the independent online audio-press that benefited most from this episode. The backyard eventually might become the main thing and then you can thank MQA for it.

Excellent observations. Superb post.

 

And yes, the audio press has thrived on pushing expensive cables and tweaks..because there is a ton of built in margin  and a sea of true believers for these products.

 

Spot on, Mr. Atkinson, in  his sheer arrogance, has overestimated his influence and underestimated his audience.

 

 

[Digital Assassin]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hi DA - Thanks for the kind words.

 

It's no secret that I feed my family from advertising income generated from CA. However, without putting the CA Community and readers / consumers first, there is no advertising income and there is no CA. For the most part ad prices are based on the amount of traffic a site receives. It's in my best interest to serve consumers and hope the income follows. It never turns out well for those who mix up the order of who is most important in this type of business. 

 

I could go on and on about this, but I hope my point is clear. It's just not worth it for me to chase advertising dollars by catering to manufacturers and putting the CA Community second. It also feels gross to think about running a business with those priorities mixed up. 

 

P.S. There are some very cool companies who totally understand this. They realize a stronger independent community is better for them than a site that is in their pocket. I enjoy working with these companies. 

Thank you for confirming what my intuition has told me about how you run the business. Clearly there are many cynics here, me among them, but you just have to believe someone when your instincts tell you they are kosher.  It seems, then you would have a hard time working at TAS or Stereophile because they without question cater to manufacturers at the expense of consumers.

 

BTW, I totally know what you mean by some companies just getting it. I bet I can name some. Sonore perhaps?

 

Cheers.

And many others.

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Digital Assassin said:

So...would does it seem credible on any level that tenured for decades editors of the only two US remaining audiophile print magazines are clueless? One who markets himself as an electronics engineer, a recording engineer, a musician, and who has measured thousands of components and speakers...clueless?

 

Or buttering the bread. I don't mind at all defending colleagues, and providing counterpoints, all sides need to make their points, but....

 

 

I've met both of them clueless is as good a one word definition of them as any. Both are good at putting out their product a print magazine.

[Digital Assassin]

28 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I've met both of them clueless is as good a one word definition of them as any. Both are good at putting out their product a print magazine.

Arrogance and cluelessness...the worst of combinations...

[Rt66indierock]

Just to lighten things up a bit, Stuart Dredge writing for Music Ally and reporting on the June 6, 2017 MIDEM Stream the Studio panel session.

 

“(Marc)Finer (Digital Entertainment Group)talked about the challenges of synchronising technological development with the marketing curve”

[Sal1950]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I could go on and on about this, but I hope my point is clear. It's just not worth it for me to chase advertising dollars by catering to manufacturers and putting the CA Community second. It also feels gross to think about running a business with those priorities mixed up. 

There just might be hope for you yet Chris.  

[Fokus]

11 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

If that is so clear and obvious, where is your lawsuit?  Or, how do you spell c-l-a-s-s a-c-t-i-o-n?

 

Thus spoke he who knows how much fun, how uplifting it is to wage a legal war against an entrenched company over something as frivole as consumer audio, with a subject matter that is, well, subjective, or at the best a case of ill-defined semantics.

 

Can you imagine this in front of a Texan judge and jury?

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

12 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Thus spoke he who knows how much fun, how uplifting it is to wage a legal war against an entrenched company over something as frivole as consumer audio, with a subject matter that is, well, subjective, or at the best a case of ill-defined semantics.

 

Can you imagine this in front of a Texan judge and jury?

 

Well, if this thread's jihad about MQA is only about subjective differences, then it is hard to understand its ferocious intensity.  I know that some, mansr and others, claim there is more objective measurable proof of its failures and even fraud in actually violating technical claims made by MQA.  Fraud is fraud, even in consumer audio.  And, it may be provable by technical measures, though certainly not by subjective ones as you say.

 

If it is all subjective, what is the problem?  Some people like Bose, some don't. Some people like Magico, some don't.  Some like hi rez, others don't.  They listen and they buy what they think sounds best to them.  If people like how MQA sounds, let them have it.  So, why the jihad against what other people may subjectively prefer?

 

And, by the way, have you done any controlled listening comparisons yourself,  preferably blind or double blind?  Since you have already made up your mind about it, sighted listening would be hopelessly biased.

 

Again, I have no plans for MQA in my own system for a host of reasons.  My own listening has not convinced me I should, so far.  But, I am not going to tell others what to do or offer false or speculative innuendo about it.

[Sal1950]

32 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

They listen and they buy what they think sounds best to them.  If people like how MQA sounds, let them have it.  So, why the jihad against what other people may subjectively prefer?

I don't understand how you can continue on with this position when it becomes clearer every day that MQA's end game is to replace non-MQA sources of both lossless Redbook and HD streams and downloads.

I'm all for choice, if people what to upsample everything to 500X DSD or PCM fine. If they want to play with all manner of filters, fine. If they want to hook ground wires to $10k boxes of Dracula's coffin dirt, fine.

But not to oppose a "jihad" to take control of digital distribution in a BAD and restrictive way is something I can't understand.

And please don't ask me again if I heard it, I don't give a rodents behind what it sounds like.

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I don't understand how you can continue on with this position when it becomes clearer every day that MQA's end game is to replace non-MQA sources of both lossless Redbook and HD streams and downloads.

I'm all for choice, if people what to upsample everything to 500X DSD or PCM fine. If they want to play with all manner of filters, fine. If they want to hook ground wires to $10k boxes of Dracula's coffin dirt, fine.

But not to oppose a "jihad" to take control of digital distribution in a BAD and restrictive way is something I can't understand.

And please don't ask me again if I heard it, I don't give a rodents behind what it sounds like.

 

Exactly!

 

[Digital Assassin]

2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, if this thread's jihad about MQA is only about subjective differences, then it is hard to understand its ferocious intensity.  I know that some, mansr and others, claim there is more objective measurable proof of its failures and even fraud in actually violating technical claims made by MQA.  Fraud is fraud, even in consumer audio.  And, it may be provable by technical measures, though certainly not by subjective ones as you say.

 

If it is all subjective, what is the problem?  Some people like Bose, some don't. Some people like Magico, some don't.  Some like hi rez, others don't.  They listen and they buy what they think sounds best to them.  If people like how MQA sounds, let them have it.  So, why the jihad against what other people may subjectively prefer?

 

And, by the way, have you done any controlled listening comparisons yourself,  preferably blind or double blind?  Since you have already made up your mind about it, sighted listening would be hopelessly biased.

 

Again, I have no plans for MQA in my own system for a host of reasons.  My own listening has not convinced me I should, so far.  But, I am not going to tell others what to do or offer false or speculative innuendo about it.

You clearly can't see a foot in front of your nose, or the ramifications of a fake "format" like MQA.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

I don't understand how you can continue on with this position when it becomes clearer every day that MQA's end game is to replace non-MQA sources of both lossless Redbook and HD streams and downloads.

I'm all for choice, if people what to upsample everything to 500X DSD or PCM fine. If they want to play with all manner of filters, fine. If they want to hook ground wires to $10k boxes of Dracula's coffin dirt, fine.

But not to oppose a "jihad" to take control of digital distribution in a BAD and restrictive way is something I can't understand.

And please don't ask me again if I heard it, I don't give a rodents behind what it sounds like.

Sal - If MQA succeeds in driving all other formats out of the market, imposing its dictatorial will and allegedly inferior sound quality on all of us, leaving us with no other choices, I will have to say I was wrong.  Until then, I see no basis for your imagined fears coming to fruition.

 

And, even then, I still have my whole existing library of thousands of discs, many of which I have not even heard yet, unless the MQA police are going to come by and burn them all, sort of like Farenheit 451 did with books.

 

It may be "clearer to you every day" as you get your mind ever more riled up about it. But, I see no rational basis for your speculative conclusion.  I think the likely outcomes for MQA are either at best market niche status in (some not all) streaming and little else or a complete flop in the marketplace.

 

But, anyway, you had best stock up now on all the pre-MQA discs you can lay hands on and put them in your hidden fallout shelter.