MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

42 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

The context for my "birth of a new world" comment

That context is absurd and unwarranted, there is no comparison to be made at all between a market shaping format such as the Compact Disc, and the snake oil bullshit that is mQa.

 

43 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

I recently arranged a blind comparison of one of my own recordings in original 24/88.2k form and the MQA-encoded version for a visiting engineer. His preference for the MQA version was the same as I had originally reported in 2016: that there was less ambiguity in the spatial relationships between the performers and the surrounding acoustic with the MQA version (See https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa.)

Interesting data point, it flies in the face of various other such tests, including the McGill study, which employed a much larger sample size.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

Is Stereophile that desperate for clicks?

Yes, and thats nothing new based on the apparent fire sale that occurred, TEN dumped it to AVTech Media and I'd always thought at that time one of the reasons JA et al. were so adamantly promoting MQA was due to it's controversial aspect, which would drive clicks that might in turn prop up the sale value of the magazine.

[MikeyFresh]

What about the various ADC chip makers and gear manufacturers, haven't they demanded to be in on this incredible new world/paradigm too? Don't they wish to aid and abet in providing "better than crown jewels" sound quality.

Aren't they concerned about all that horrible smearing taking place in the time domain? Don't they listen to TIDAL "Masters"?

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

"Elegant": So What! Who cares?

Almost nobody ever cared about this so-called "elegance" at all.

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Amazon, Qobuz and others have now shown that there is no "reduced need" - there's no need.

Exactly, and the crowd listening on mobile devices over a cellular connection isn't that gravely concerned with sound quality, and always had the option of using lossy streams to control their data use.

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

DEBLURRING: We still don't know what the invented MQA term "deblurring" means and if it actually exists - b/c MQA won't let it be tested. 

Translation: it does not exist.

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

We've already seen thousands of standard PCM versions of albums disappear at Tidal in favor "MQA" or the falsely named "MQA CD". This is exactly the scenario many feared, and that was denied as a possibility by MQA.

Also denied vehemently by mQa's many influencers, right here in these pages. A solid reason to never subscribe to TIDAL, even if there were no other choices available.

[MikeyFresh]

On 8/25/2021 at 6:29 PM, John_Atkinson said:

I know you are "cracking wise" but dCS has always offered a very short antialiaslng fliter on its A/D converters to reduce the otherwise inevitable sinc-function ringing on transients.

Is that what you use and have always used in the making of your own recordings?

[MikeyFresh]

41 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

It is pretty clear that JA and Stereophile are not looking out for the consumer's best interests.

Exactly, he just recycled their debunked BS all over again, same old story there.

 

34 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

It seems to me that you are clinging to your embrace of MQA simply because you refuse to admit you are wrong.

Thats right, he just octupled down on that whole story.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

MQA offers benefits to both the record industry and the consumer. The former is no longer allowing free access to its unencrypted masters

They aren't? Can't I still hear the unencrypted master on Qobuz, or buy a download of it at HDtracks?

I think you meant they're in the process of disallowing that on TIDAL, no?

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

IMO: 

Even though the discussion seems like it goes on and on, I believe that it is important to keep this discussion active.   The MQA travesty needs active conversation so that new people (and the people from the past) never think that MQA has become acceptable for some reason.   It should never appear that the MQA advocacy has 'beaten' down the technically astute and those trying to maintain access to whatever quality is left on ubiquitous commercial recordings.

 

 

Exactly, and there has been no "bickering like children" despite the recent ridiculous accusation of such. Further, if that post thinks it's so "simple", and all he need do is not use mQa, then goodie for him, however the greater fight remains quite important and present. Proof of that lies in what mQa has done to TIDAL, rendering it a non-choice for consumers. If everyone just sits back and takes the so-called "simple approach", we could lose other options too.

[MikeyFresh]

48 minutes ago, BassFace said:

The same 7 or 8 people liking each other's post , big deal.  Step back and to the normal person that's all you's are all doing. Its not trolling its mere observation from outside the little clique which is paramount on most forums but off the charts in the world of Hi-Fi.  Of course your not going to agree with me, your all too busy posting silly pictures and clicking like.

Funny then how you are willing to spend any time on it at all if that's your take. Or are you just trolling and attempting to derail this thread by saying stupid shit that people will react negatively too?

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, BassFace said:

No point in small talk anything of substance will have Frank trying to tell me otherwise.  Im still being told about MQA when Ive read the past 500+ pages of this topic Zzzzz  It hardly resembles a party on here either, just grumpy old men that does very little to inspire new people to join would be another observation. But I could be wrong..  

You've completely dodged the direct question then of why you don't just ignore the topic. Why keep coming back just to troll and complain? Where is your own super compelling fresh new content?

[MikeyFresh]

11 minutes ago, BassFace said:

Its a bit one sided though wouldnt you say...., after all Im up against a group of grumpy old men on my todd. 

I'd ask you to define "old', or how it is you'd know any particular thread participant's age (you don't know my age for example), but then if I did I'd just be feeding the troll.

Talk about grumpy, pot calling the kettle black? 😖

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

I would not be surprised if the Stereophile writers know this and are just throwing stuff in their articles as clickbait without actual conviction.

Me neither, and I think that would also have been true in the lead up to the sale of Stereophile to AVTech Media in spring 2018. The mQa click bait would have been one thing helping to prop up whatever little value the publication had left with regard to the sale terms.

[MikeyFresh]

On 9/22/2021 at 1:21 PM, Pierre LeMonf said:

Forgive me, but after parsing through this thread, isn't the quote below pure merde?

 

 

"When music is playing, the EVO's screen displays, along with the album cover, the song and album titles, the artist's name, the stream resolution, the file format, the track's total and elapsed time, and—if the track is MQA—the MQA logo accompanied by either a green or a blue dot indicating whether that MQA recording is engineer- or artist-approved (blue, "MQA Studio"). If the dot is green, it means that the file being streamed is intact MQA, but it may not be the most recent or definitive version of the recording.

 

I got a kick out of seeing my first blue authentication dot. I thought: "This recording is the real deal!" It appeared on the 24/192 MQA version of John Coltrane's cover of "My Favorite Things" (Atlantic/Qobuz) which I heard after I'd heard that same track on a green-lighted 16/44.1 MQA mix."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/cambridge-audio-evo-150-streaming-integrated-amplifier

In reading through that piece, the author finds reason to mention mQa fourteen times. If you add the editor's footnotes, mQa is mentioned no less than sixteen times, in a 2 page review.

 

So many other aspects and features of that product are glossed over, or entirely skipped, in order to fully flesh out the mQa love fest the reviewer evidently experienced. 

 

How anyone reading that review wouldn't be able to read between the lines as to the true purpose (mQa promotion) is beyond me. Shame on the writer, the editor, and the publication as a whole in devoting so much time effort and space to such a sham.

 

I think they do Cambridge Audio a disservice there. What about all of the readers that have no interest in mQa but are force fed that level of garbage just to keep up the crusade? Aren't most other interesting aspects of the product design completely short changed in such a devout gushing?

 

Pathetic.

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

However, white gloving and "juicing" the version used in a demo doesn't help anyone, unless that's standard operating procedure for all mQa material. 

Which of course it is not, their SOP is the sausage maker in the cloud. The white gloved juiced versions were simply the bait used for the switch.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

I believe the European release by Warners

This is a Warner release in Europe? I thought this was EMI/Harvest/Capitol worldwide ever since the rights that Sony/Columbia once held in various regions expired in 2000. The 1997 Sony remastering was then used by EMI until 2011, when the current reissue was remastered.

 

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

both MQA and FLAC PCM the error is clearly noticeable on Qobuz and Amazon in the UK too, what a mess and a bit of embarrassment for such a high profile bands hi res releases.

I'm not seeing any of that on the Qobuz release in the U.S. That one plays absolutely perfectly at 24/96 with no hiccups or glitches. Additionally, these all show as Pink Floyd Records releases in the U.S.

 

My only real question there was why is The Wall at 24/96, when it seems the rest of the catalog was done at 24/192, and I'm not hearing that those are clearly just upsampled. Even if they were upsampled, the question would then be why they didn't also offer The Wall at an upsampled 24/192 as well.

 

Lastly, I see on the U.S. HDtracks download store as well as the U.S. Qobuz download store that The Wall is available only in 24/96 for hi-res download.

[MikeyFresh]

One clarification, in the U.S. The Dark Side Of The Moon is also only available as 24/96, not a commentary on quality, just that it too like The Wall seemingly wasn't done in 24/192 as with the rest of the catalog.

[MikeyFresh]

A recent "Spotify vs. TIDAL" article appearing in Android Authority stated this:

 

"Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) promises high-resolution (96kHz/24bit) audio delivered via FLAC or WAV file. Any media labeled as MQA under Tidal means that the artist directly authenticated it."

 

True or false?

[MikeyFresh]

53 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just when you thought the defense of mQa could reach any lower, I direct you to this beauty from Dave Kelly - https://www.strata-gee.com/mqa-finale-both-anti-and-pro-forces-have-their-successes-and-failures/#comment-47519

 

Absurd beyond belief, and in a number of different ways.

 

Following that post's logic, you'd have been right back onboard with MQA the moment Jack Dorsey and Square bought TIDAL last March. Oh wait, that was actually many months before that idiotic post and innuendo was even made.

 

52 minutes ago, dmackta said:

Chris I have bad news for you and your readers. Qobuz senior management in the USA are Jews. ;-)

 

Huh? well now, that of course changes damn near everything! I think a full reconsideration is in order, good day sir. 🤔 🤪

[MikeyFresh]

I've completed my comprehensive review, and I'm sticking with Qobuz.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I don't get that whole article. In an extreme attempt to be fair and objective, it seems to be another example of people who just accept MQA claims.

I couldn't agree more and think this piece is a veiled pro-MQA stance, trying it's best to somehow sound fair, and provide some sort of claimed long hard hours research and analysis in a "civil" manner thats claimed to be otherwise lacking in everything from this forum, to GoldenSound's videos. Gimme a break.

 

Thats propaganda, and I've lost some respect for Bill Leebens in that regard. The call to authority of the various mastering engineers who stand to make money by kowtowing to MQA in hopes of being involved in their "white glove" efforts, as well as Bob Stuart himself, are just more of the same from that playbook. 

 

The piece looks to me like a blatant attempt at trying to repair MQA's image at this late date, knowing full well how badly they had shot themselves in the foot in the past at Chris' RMAF talk, and in other high-brow interviews too. Bob's retort to the RMAF incident that in hindsight they simply wouldn't have even attended is just more of the same again, acting above it all and not apologizing for the pathetic behavior of his senior management, and essentially taking the stance that they need not face any scrutiny at all.

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Someone might want to remind the writer of the "hearing" study results from McGill University. What are we supposed to "hear" again in order to "believe"?!

 

I thought it ironic that Leebens felt the need to cite George Massenburg's teaching affiliation at McGill, but made absolutely no mention of the McGill study you cite.

 

I'll also admit that prior to today I had never even heard of Strata-gee, nor Ted Green, and while I appreciate the supposed mission of his site, I don't think this MQA piece/summation provides any unique insight or real value to readers.

[MikeyFresh]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

it's a mouthpiece for  industry practices masquerading as a magazine that gives serious reviews. 

... and has been for a VERY long time now. ARQ's rag is an essentially similar advertorial.

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Is Archimago suggesting that there's an important difference between "unattributed" and "anonymous"? Our Product of the Year Awards are actually written by the person who wrote the full review, even though his name or initials aren't given. But the issue number is provided in the blurb so you can find out who it was. Look, I'm no partisan when it comes to the MQA debate but I continue to detect a double standard when it comes to public discussion of this technology. Engineers who have anything good to say about MQA are either unqualified or shameless shills; engineers who condemn it are courageous truth-tellers. The dynamic, unfortunately, parallels the tone of the discussion with far more critical issues of the day—vaccination, climate change, election integrity, and so on.

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer, TAS

Another ARQ drive-by, replete with revisionist history, and false equivalencies intended to deflect the real issues at hand. In other words, more from the very same tired old playbook.

[MikeyFresh]

45 minutes ago, Revelation said:

All this bitching about MQA....if you don't like, just don't use it. No one is forcing you to use it.

Who's "bitching"? I know TIDAL fan boys get their panties in a bunch whenever anyone suggests there are better choices out there, but in this case the bitchin' seems to be coming from you.

 

Don't use MQA, and no one is being forced? No shit Sherlock, however the purpose of the opposition to MQA isn't to bitch about anything, it is to ensure there is a hardy disapproval message being sent to the record labels, the equipment manufacturers, and anyone else thinking that MQA can become the de facto standard in music distribution.

 

The MQA brass have stated such as the goal, and the record labels have shown signs they could be onboard with such a "one deliverable approach". See Warner Music's removal of all standard Redbook CD versions on TIDAL, replacing it with Master Quality Adulterated. They are forcing TIDAL subscribers to listen only to MQA, and in that process also forcing 3rd parties such as Roon and Audirvana to pay inflated per stream licensing fees to MQA, because the MQA-less versions of those albums no longer even exist as a choice.

 

Toss in that the major record labels are about a 30% stakeholder in MQA, and yeah, we don't want to be force fed anymore of this bullshit, hence the vocal opposition found here and elsewhere. If you don't like it then please unsubscribe to this thread, rather than complain about so-called bitching, or make claims that no one is being forced. TIDAL subscribers are being forced, even if they downgrade their subscription, they are still being fed this MQA crap and not the real Redbook transfers that once existed on that service. Roon and Audirvana are being forced to pay ever higher per stream royalties whenever a TIDAL subscriber listens to a Warner Music label album.

 

I hate to break it to you, but TIDAL ain't all that.

[MikeyFresh]

18 minutes ago, rex4539 said:

You've beaten this dead horse long enough. All I'm saying is that if anybody thinks they can hear a difference between the DXD and MQA version of those 2L recordings, I challenge them to pass double blind AB tests.

But you skirted right past what Chris said, which is the spec you so boldly tossed out there is completely meaningless, you won't come close to that kind of dynamic range with your MQA DAC.

 

Further, who cares about your blind listening test challenge, aren't you just parroting others now with what you think sounds impressive? Thats actually comical in that you've driven home a major negative point about MQA, that being it provides no audible improvement/difference as demonstrated in the McGill blind listening study. So why the hell would anyone then wish to pay licensing fees, in fact fees at every stop in the music distribution chain just to prop up such a bogus scheme, if there is no sonic benefit?

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Uh, oh. Fire in the hole. Interesting comments from Lee on WBF:

 

"The bottom line is that Robert Harley, Andy Quint, and myself have talked up MQA because we hear the sound quality improvement."

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/state-of-the-industry-roy-gregory-editorial.34618/#post-787957

In reading the RG blog post, it appears he might have been asked to take down or rewrite the final page? I now see a blank on Page 10 of that piece, and many of the things mentioned or quoted from it in the WBF thread are now missing, including MQA.