MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

20 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Umm- if you are talking about MQA taking over the world, then I think this thread certainly must include them. Also, I do not think that J Lo or Kayne, or The Rolling Stones or Coldplay or Maroon 5, or whomever, care one bit whether you buy their music in hi-res, CD, or in MQA.  Just so long as you buy it.

 

I think we're on the same page.  "the world" in "taking over the world" does not include independent, unsigned artists.  When MQA comes to Bandcamp, let me know.  🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

What am I doing, saying, or not doing that is causing confusion? Let me try this way, and if you disagree, please explain why a little more. Concrete between the ears today, apparently. 

 

• MQA wants to be universal.
• They will never convince the local musicians to join MQA unless there is a strong financial incentive to do so. 
• They number in the thousands, and have billions of dollars of impact on the local community. 
• How is MQA ever going to "take over" the world with those kinds of people out there?   

That's just one group. You have audiophiles on a different hand, and while we represent a much smaller market segment and economic impact, we certainly do carry some clout. People targeting the audiophile market will build equipment that does not contain MQA is audiophiles will buy it.  The same is actually true in the pro market.

 

I'm not totally sure, but I think "take over the world" was your characterization.  Unsigned and indie artists aren't relevant.  During SACDs heyday, how many unsigned artists do you think were releasing on SACD?  And I seriously doubt anyone was pinning their hopes on unsigned artists to transform SACD into a market juggernaut. 

 

For me, MQA is about what's happening with the major labels back catalogs.  I really could care less about contemporary artists.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Paul R said:

 

I can see that.

 

On the other hand, everyone has some of the back catalog, at least on CD resolution. Those files are not going to stop working even if MQA takes over all music distribution in the world.  If it becomes available for sale only in MQA, who is going to buy it? And Why?  

 

If they drop the price and release a lot of the unreleased music, assuming they can find the tapes of course, then- maybe...

 

Tapes?  If they were mastered before around 1985, maybe.  HDTracks has many titles where the 80s and 90s era 16/44 masters are captured to analog tape (for preservation and future readability) then that tape is in turn captured digitally again at a higher sample rate.  Those output files, even in "naked" PCM format are not worth the disc space that they consume.  And lots of those files have been made into MQA.  "Master Quality" is a lie.

[Samuel T Cogley]

39 minutes ago, new_media said:

I've sort of lost track of this discussion.

 

We shouldn't be critical of MQA because they probably won't have much market penetration?

 

That seems to be Scoggins' latest angle.  "Nothing to see here, you guys need to relax" 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, daverich4 said:

 

Why would you worry about the back catalogs?  Pretty much everything has been published in any format you care to have and if it’s reissued in MQA because it “sounds better”, you know that’s not true and aren’t going to buy it anyway. 

 

"worry" isn't a word I would use.  I always seek out back catalog material in resolutions higher than Redbook because that's where there is a slightly better chance there will be minimal peak limiting.  A recent example for me is the HDTracks Band On The Run (the dynamically uncompressed version of course).  So I have the full resolution files for home listening, and I can downsample and dither those same files to put an a DAP (iPhone in this case).  Win/win.  But there's so much music that I'm interested in that either hasn't been released in higher than Redbook resolution, or it has but it's peak limited.  Robert Palmer's back catalog is an example where I'm still using the Barry Diament masters because they're still the best.  But I'd love to hear those titles passed through a modern ADC.

 

What I don't want is for there to be a new mastering pass on the material and only MQA appears at the end of the process.  I have plenty of DAPs and DACs.  I won't buy new ones just for MQA.  And besides, the unmolested PCM will be superior to the lossy MQA versions.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I think it's kind of telling that Mr. Quint, even though he says again and again that he really doesn't care about MQA, wants the one thread that is clearly the thorn in the backside of MQA to be shut down.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

At least I can count on this community for a good sense of humor. You guys seriously are the best. 

 

I don't say it enough Chris, but it's we who owe YOU a BIG thank you!!! 👍

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

What would a mature discussion past the technical stage look like?  What can (if anything) consumers do now?  Endless "debate" with the Lee's, Quint's, and JA's of this world is certainly not it - that is the very definition of futility.  What is the way forward?

 

It seems Scoggins is now hedging on his "predictions" of MQA's future success.  He's the most enthusiastic supporter of MQA that I'm aware of outside of MQA's executive staff, so this is news in my opinion.

 

Perhaps he's still feeling the sting of Light Harmonic's death spiral in spite of his fawning article.  And maybe he's seeing an outcome where all his MQA cheerleading comes back to haunt him as well.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps starting out with the easily digestible Jud explanation leading into "what now..."

 

And @Jud deserves a BIG shout out for putting that together! 👍

[Samuel T Cogley]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

Thanks folks, but @mansr in particular and @Miska did all the heavy lifting.

 

Yes, Jud, but (no disrespect to @mansr or @Miska) you made it accessible to many more people, increasing the signal to noise ratio in the thread! 

[Samuel T Cogley]

To me, the argument is stupid simple:

 

• Tidal has lossy MQA
• Qobuz has (mostly) the same lossless material that has not been adulterated by MQA

Wouldn't pretty much everyone pick the lossless choice?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

 

I realize this is off-topic but you frequently use the term “astroturfer”. Can you tell me who or what that means? I’d like to get on the same page but this is the only place I’ve ever run across that. 

 

Astroturfing

 

Quote

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots". The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a "true" or "natural" grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a "fake" or "artificial" appearance of support.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

It seems that MQA's latest play is mobile phones.  I'm struggling to understand how MQA thinks there is any appetite for lossless 44/16  in the mobile market let alone something MQA claims is "as good as" 96/24 content.

 

How many audiophiles do you know whose mobile phone is at the center of their home system?  The typical mobile phone usage model is using cheap, low fidelity earbuds or some Bluetooth end point.  Bluetooth at best can sound as good as high bitrate lossy compression, but typically is stuck around 250-350 kbps, with only LDAC (requires special hardware) providing something like truly lossless streaming.

 

Is something like LDAC phone -> LDAC headphones where MQA thinks they can make strides?  LDAC headphones aren't cheap.  And as such, they'll likely be a big theft target in public transportation scenarios.  The other glaring issue is Tidal, who only just recently got MQA's "first unfold" to work on mobile platforms.  I guess we'll never know how much of that work came from MQA vs. the alleged Tidal developers.  You need Tidal to get MQA and Tidal's music selection is a mere fraction of what mainstream services like Spotify and Apple Music offer.

[Samuel T Cogley]

To be fair, Scoggins is something like a hero to some.  Seriously.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, realhifi said:

 

The mobile market IS the market. Think car stereos, portable boom box type devices, friends sharing with their phone, etc, etc. Who doesn’t want better sound in their car?  I sure notice the difference in sound quality between various streaming services 

 

Sure, but how audible will the difference between 255 kbps lossy AAC compression and lossless 44/16 actually be?  I've taken those "tests", and I can do it with certain material, a very quiet environment and headphones.  Now MQA is saying, "bypass the lossless Redbook and go straight for MQA".  "Everyone wants better sound" but we're talking about a moving vehicle with a really high noise floor compared to home listening.

[Samuel T Cogley]

21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

It’s the personal attacks and baiting that I see as gang think, and very very bad. They are not about tech criticisms, or arguing over ideas - they are straight up personal attacks with the intention of trapping the victim into doing something that gets the victim banned.

 

Little doubt that Lee blew his cool and was fairly banned. But to my mind, the ones who baited him, knowing very well he would blow his cool,  are every bit as much to blame. Fortunately people here are only banned on what they actually do, not on what they intend. 

 

Still - much as I disagreed with him about MQA, Lee was treated unfairly, accused of much wrongdoing, and baited unmercifully. Reminds me of a gang of middle schoolers, and I think, a good example of mob think.  

 

And as soon as the gang tactics worked, Lee did blow his cool, even for a moment and under provocation, I am sure the little monkeys gleefully reported his post. I see that as abusing the system myself.

 

Hi Paul

 

I think you're leaving out the significant volume of disingenuous posts that Scoggins left here.  Most of Scoggins' MQA posts (and there's very little here outside of that) were disingenuous trolling with a wispy thin veneer of polite advocacy.  He was trolling.  Might not look that way to someone not familiar with his forum tactics, but it was straight up trolling.  When asked to back up claims he made that alleged to address some of the critical technical shortcomings of MQA, he would always eventually retreat to copied/pasted MQA marketing material.

 

A troll that's on a first name basis with Mike Jbara is still a troll.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, realhifi said:

 

Was just commenting on the traction in the mobile space. Not wanting to get into back and forth on MQA “debate”. 

 

We really don't need to get into that.  I'm just pointing out that at some point, higher fidelity in the car is a waste of time and money.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, realhifi said:

To each his own I guess. 

 

So you disagree?  Noise floor isn't a factor here?

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

There are are numerous heated and/or passionate reply’s to him that were not personal attacks, but rather disagreed with his ideas.

 

That's the thing Paul.  These were never "his ideas".  Like in other audio forums, Scoggins promotes brands where he has successfully established some relationship with the company's principles (i.e., he calls them by first name).  Scoggins arrived here to "help" Mike Jbara, not provide any kind of consumer advocacy.

 

I'm not trying to justify any kind of mob mentality.  But I think you have a bit of a "rose colored" view of Scoggins' motives.

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Oh no, I agree his motives were suspect, but that they were never proved is evident because he was not banned for those motives. 

 

I disagree quite strongly with the tactics used to remove him is all.

 

Having witnessed his relentless shilling in various audio forums for over a decade, I'll take what I can get.  His trolling should be considered a hostile act IMHO.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

Just curious, what year are you referring to? I learned that lesson when the Morris Worm zapped me. 

 

Hey, me too!  Who knew Sendmail would give you a root shell if you just asked politely? 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, firedog said:

Does everyone know Yiddish these days?  Just wondering. If so, that's new to me.

 

The only Yiddish I know:

 

Schlemiel <- person who spills the soup at your dinner party

Schlimazel <- person who the soup was spilled on

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Tintinabulum said:

And out of curiosity, what is the aim of this counterargument? To convince others? The hostile attitude won't do that. To change the business model of MQA?

 

What you're calling "hostile attitude" has indeed changed some minds about MQA.  Just look at the open hostility by the MQA executives at Chris' RMAF presentation last year.  Fighting fire with fire?

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

Maybe a less hostile attitude could have changed more and avoided polarisation

 

My grandmother used to say, "you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar".  But Grandma never saw how insidious both the technology and the marketing of MQA are.  And those who suggest that Grandma's method should be used with MQA never, ever acknowledge the hostility (in the form of disingenuous and misleading claims) of MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Did you mis-spell 'zero' ??

 

Nope, serious.  Just look at his threads (the ones that didn't get deleted) over at Hoffman to see what I mean.