MQA is Vaporware

[mav52]

Nowadays there is very little hi-fi critique; magazines are little more than an effective marketing tool...

 

Marketing tool, got that right, count the adds vs actual subject text in stereophile, ads win out big time.

[Ralf11]

if you've priced a nice condo in Mid-town next to the park recently, you'd see why the ads are necessary

[Axiom05]

Over at Audiostream, Jim Collinson from Linn has posted a very well thought out comment on all the downsides to MQA. Here's an excerpt:

 

 

 

I encourage everyone interested in MQA to read the whole thing.

 

It appears to have been deleted by the editor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[4est]

???

Isn't that illegal?

I am trying to make most of my CDs go away soon...

 

But I fear it will take a looong time. I load up a few at a time and trade them in for other used ones at ye old local CD trading place.

[Samuel T Cogley]

It appears to have been deleted by the editor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

Have a look here.

[Ralf11]

???

Isn't that illegal?

 

eh??? I listen to something I've bought and then sell it.

[crenca]

It appears to have been deleted by the editor.

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

"editor" is a strong word for Michael L It is a running joke, that if you have not been banned by him you are not saying anything worth reading. I (and several others) were banned on the same thread after he posted a video that a power cable manufacture had made where they had some radiologist claiming he could "see" better into the images and make better diagnoses when he used their power cables.

 

Michael may be good DAC reviewer (and he is in large part - I find his analysis almost always jibes with my own) but a blog editor he is not - he simply wants you to agree with him, and if you don't he takes it personally.

 

Interesting how Stereophile stepped all over a potential advertiser however - apparently the success of MQA is much more $valuable$ to them then any potential advertisement $dollars$ from Linn- either that or they are True Believers - dissent will not be allowed!! All bow before MMMMMQQQQQQAAAAAA......LOL!

 

Update: The "editor" claims they removed a "Linn advertisement" - not true at all - the original post was a thoughtful and forthright explications of the "cons" of MQA to the industry, to the consumer, etc. It is VERY disingenuous on Stereophile's part to claim they removed an "advertisement". It makes one question the professionalism of Stereophile - perhaps JA will step in with a cooler head...

[MarkS]

Of course it can be done in software. In fact, it is always done in software, although (some of) that software runs on the DAC microcontroller. Tying it to hardware appears to be nothing other than a scheme to ensure licensing revenue.

 

If that is indeed true, I would really need to think about whether I could support MQA. But why could an identical revenue stream not be generated by software?

[Rt66indierock]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/business/media/music-sales-remain-steady-but-lucrative-cd-sales-decline.html

2015 figures (I think 2016 figures should be in by around March of this year), $US:

 

Music industry total: Just over $7 billion.

Streaming (services including Tidal, free streaming [including ad-supported], Internet radio): $2.4 billion

Digital downloads: Just under $2.4 billion

CDs: $1.5 billion

Vinyl: $416 million

YouTube and similar sites: $385 million

 

Jud thanks or posting this. I have avoided the dollar figures and focused on subscribers and unit sales because I enjoy Chris going on about free markets and the drill down to commentary on the dollars always includes complaints about regulation. For those who don't know in the United States the music business is highly regulated and they use every chance to complain about it. Our Department of Justice trusts them so little they tightened the regulations last year.

 

Even in decline CDs will be relevant for a few more years.

[abrxx]

If that is indeed true, I would really need to think about whether I could support MQA. But why could an identical revenue stream not be generated by software?

 

I don't think it can all be done by software. Certainly from reading the patents the emphasis is on a end-to-end system which includes the ADC and DAC. Reasons I can think of include:

 

- how can MQA select the correct reconstruction filter in the DAC if its not got any control over the DAC?

- (guessing here) perhaps there is a potential for the DAC upsampling to mess up the MQA unfolding.

- with certain DACs the USB interface is the limiting factor (like the Dragonfly). If it was all done in software then 96 kHz would

be the max input. But with MQA firmware in the DAC it can support unfolding to at least 192 kHz (to be confirmed).

 

The basic idea is that MQA is an end to end system that wants to control the ADC and the DAC. This is why many of the DAC manufacturers don't like it. Does the MQA system work? We'll find out this year, as we experiment with various DACs etc.

[new_media]

Glad to see the new Flaming Lips album is out in 24/96 FLAC. Warner hasn't started holding back the crown jewels quite yet.

[audiventory]

I don't think it can all be done by software. Certainly from reading the patents the emphasis is on a end-to-end system which includes the ADC and DAC. Reasons I can think of include:

 

- how can MQA select the correct reconstruction filter in the DAC if its not got any control over the DAC?

- (guessing here) perhaps there is a potential for the DAC upsampling to mess up the MQA unfolding.

- with certain DACs the USB interface is the limiting factor (like the Dragonfly). If it was all done in software then 96 kHz would

be the max input. But with MQA firmware in the DAC it can support unfolding to at least 192 kHz (to be confirmed).

 

The basic idea is that MQA is an end to end system that wants to control the ADC and the DAC. This is why many of the DAC manufacturers don't like it. Does the MQA system work? We'll find out this year, as we experiment with various DACs etc.

 

If I understand correctly, you think that hardware can more that software for MQA decoding, isn’t it?

 

If so, I can say that MQA decoding very probably (nobody except its developers exactly know how it work) is pure math.

 

If there pure math, PC, as rule, have more math capabilities than hardware decisions.

 

For super fast math may be used FPGA or one-chip processors. But there may be limitations in application kinds, price and precision.

But it is general reasoning. Need consider each implementation.

 

However, most audio applications may be solved on PC faster (in development) and with maximal reasonable precision.

 

In PC resampling may be performed in 64-bit float point. But, I suppose, it is too hard task for hardware decisions.

 

Even if MQA use some analog processing (I very doubt that), then analog processing may be modelled in PC.

[MikeJazz]

It appears to have been deleted by the editor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

It' says a lot about the people that deleted it.

[realhifi]

It' says a lot about the people that deleted it.

 

After reading the (long) post from Linn I also thought that it sounded like an advertisement. Not sure I would have deleted it though.

[MikeJazz]

After reading the (long) post from Linn I also thought that it sounded like an advertisement. Not sure I would have deleted it though.

 

My reading is that it was an excuse to avoid discussing very valid points...

Audiostream is a publication, which is very different from the responsibility that comes from a forum (CA, for example). In my view they should be careful when using censorship... After all, they are journalists and they enjoy freedom of writing...they just should allow others to have the same freedom.

 

They could have avoided what sounded like advertisement by editing and erasing the "LINN" name if that was their concern...

[Jim Collinson]

Over at Audiostream, Jim Collinson from Linn has posted a very well thought out comment on all the downsides to MQA.

I encourage everyone interested in MQA to read the whole thing.

 

I should point out that I didn't actually post the—now deleted—comment over on Audiostream, another user has pasted it from my original post made over on the Linn forums.

 

The guy seemed to have posted it multiple times so perhaps it may have looked like spam.

 

Jim Collinson

[mansr]

Even if MQA use some analog processing (I very doubt that), then analog processing may be modelled in PC.

 

A firmware update won't rewire the analogue parts of a DAC.

[Michael Lavorgna]

"editor" is a strong word for Michael L It is a running joke, that if you have not been banned by him you are not saying anything worth reading. I (and several others) were banned on the same thread after he posted a video that a power cable manufacture had made where they had some radiologist claiming he could "see" better into the images and make better diagnoses when he used their power cables.

 

Michael may be good DAC reviewer (and he is in large part - I find his analysis almost always jibes with my own) but a blog editor he is not - he simply wants you to agree with him, and if you don't he takes it personally.

 

Interesting how Stereophile stepped all over a potential advertiser however - apparently the success of MQA is much more $valuable$ to them then any potential advertisement $dollars$ from Linn- either that or they are True Believers - dissent will not be allowed!! All bow before MMMMMQQQQQQAAAAAA......LOL!

 

Update: The "editor" claims they removed a "Linn advertisement" - not true at all - the original post was a thoughtful and forthright explications of the "cons" of MQA to the industry, to the consumer, etc. It is VERY disingenuous on Stereophile's part to claim they removed an "advertisement". It makes one question the professionalism of Stereophile - perhaps JA will step in with a cooler head...

...because you were making things up and representing them as fact.

 

A few corrections - AudioStream is not Stereophile. I am the editor of the former, JA the latter. There is no overlap so "Stereophile" has nothing to do with what goes on on AudioStream.

 

This post of yours, "crenca", is a perfect example of your "style" - purposeful misrepresentation, misinformation, and simply being flat out wrong.

[realhifi]

My reading is that it was an excuse to avoid discussing very valid points...

Audiostream is a publication, which is very different from the responsibility that comes from a forum (CA, for example). In my view they should be careful when using censorship... After all, they are journalists and they enjoy freedom of writing...they just should allow others to have the same freedom.

 

They could have avoided what sounded like advertisement by editing and erasing the "LINN" name if that was their concern...

 

My take is that they would just as soon not have ANY manufacturers commenting in that section. I read it the same way they did. Advertising.

[Samuel T Cogley]

...because you were making things up and representing them as fact.

 

A few corrections - AudioStream is not Stereophile. I am the editor of the former, JA the latter. There is no overlap so "Stereophile" has nothing to do with what goes on on AudioStream.

 

This post of yours, "crenca", is a perfect example of your "style" - purposeful misrepresentation, misinformation, and simply being flat out wrong.

 

How wonderful. No doubt you will avoid any substantive discussion on the pros/cons of MQA. You will not engage in a back and forth regarding this alleged firewall that exists between Stereophile and Audiostream (they appear to be part of the same media brand according to the collection of logos at the bottom of each web page). You will not break down any of the alleged "misrepresentation" or "misinformation", you'll just throw out the words and run back to the safety of your censored comments section.

 

But most importantly, you have dismissed well thought out and quite valid concerns about the future of recorded digital music as a "Linn advertisement".

 

I have only one question: Why are the egos so eggshell fragile when it comes to elite audio gear reviewers such as yourself?

[Michael Lavorgna]

My take is that they would just as soon not have ANY manufacturers commenting in that section. I read it the same way they did. Advertising.

There were a number of additional posts by the same user that promoted Linn. When viewed on whole, it was clear that the intention was to posit Linn against MQA. It is also the case that this user is not associated with Linn professionally but some posts were misleadingly 'signed' by a Linn employee.

[Michael Lavorgna]

How wonderful. No doubt you will avoid any substantive discussion on the pros/cons of MQA. You will not engage in a back and forth regarding this alleged firewall that exists between Stereophile and Audiostream (they appear to be part of the same media brand according to the collection of logos at the bottom of each web page). You will not break down any of the alleged "misrepresentation" or "misinformation", you'll just throw out the words and run back to the safety of your censored comments section.

 

But most importantly, you have dismissed well thought out and quite valid concerns about the future of recorded digital music as a "Linn advertisement".

 

I have only one question: Why are the egos so eggshell fragile when it comes to elite audio gear reviewers such as yourself?

Here's a novel idea - try asking a meaningful question.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Here's a novel idea - try asking a meaningful question.

 

Let's start here:

 

Please break down, in detail, the alleged "misrepresentation" and "misinformation". And don't run away. There will be follow up questions.

[Michael Lavorgna]

of the alleged "misrepresentation" or "misinformation"

Here's "crenca": "...where they had some radiologist claiming..."

 

Here are the credentials of the person in question: Daniel P. Melby, MD, Cardiac Electrophysiology, Medical Director, Electrophysiology Lab, Minneapolis Heart Institute

[Michael Lavorgna]

Let's start here:

 

Please break down, in detail, the alleged "misrepresentation" and "misinformation". And don't run away. There will be follow up questions.

Here's another helpful tip for you - if you continue to act like an ass, I will most certainly ignore you. Capiche? You see, I don't mind having a conversation but I do mind bullshit.