MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The last page was blank when I first read it.

I see, and is it safe to say the things you reacted to in the WBF thread regarding MQA are not in the "Glass Ceiling" piece but some other piece on that blog?

 

Or, were the various negative references to MQA that you reacted to on WBF in fact originally in that "Glass Ceiling" piece but have since been removed? I do not and have never seen them there.

 

Lastly, I found this comment of yours rather curious:

 

Neither the Wadax nor MSB have optimized MQA implementations. That is likely what is causing the softness you are hearing. On Meridian, dCS, and Mytek implementations, it definitely makes a difference.
 

Exactly how would you personally know if Wadax or MSB have "optimized" MQA implementations, and what exactly do their implementations lack in terms of this supposed MQA optimization? Is that assessment just based on your personal subjective take on the Wadax and MSB gear, or is there more to it than that?

 

It would seem by your comment you are saying that only Meridian, dCS, and Mytek have this special MQA optimization in their products, or are you simply saying that Wadax and MSB specifically do not?

[MikeyFresh]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I know how close these teams worked with the MQA team.

The Wadax and MSB design engineers indicated in specific conversation with you that they did not work closely with the MQA team, or was it the MQA team that intimated a lack of closeness with both Wadax and MSB to you?

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

Amazing that he's in "leadership" and develops "strategy" for TAS and Hi-Fi+!

Beyond amazing, and indicative of a poor vetting of his résumé.

 

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

Surely, holding it together and having the self-control to know how to respond diplomatically should be within the basic skill set of the president of a publishing company; or at least I would have thought.

That's a very reasonable expectation, and one that also would have been appropriate for the MQA cadre that rudely derailed Chris' MQA talk at RMAF some years ago. Lee was cozied up right there next to Jbara for that one, with his attack-dog buddy Forsythe strategically deployed across on the other side of the room. Brilliant planning and execution there, as Lee saw it, they all 3 came away looking good (in some alternative universe).

 

[MikeyFresh]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

But what's more unbelievable to me is he now posts as the Chief Executive Officer at Nextscreen, LLC and somehow he still doesn't feel any need to dial back the disingenuousness.

That was unbelievable, though he did not add his recent industry affiliation to his signature, so for the uninitiated it wasn't even entirely clear who Lee Scoggins is (was).

 

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

This makes me really question the integrity of the publications under his control.

Ditto (queue the obligatory ARQ drive-by).

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Did his company Madrona Digital carry Meridian products

I'm not sure about Meridian, but Madrona Digital definitely carried Berkeley Audio Design, and various Harman brands that are big MQA proponents, so I believe you've likely hit the nail on the head with regard to ASR's defense of MQA.

[MikeyFresh]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

This is wrong? Without measurements to demonstrate that something was missed, you can’t be certain that it was, or if it was a significant miss.  All you can do is argue about it. And even if you can provide a hypothesis that sounds reasonable, it’ll remain a hypothesis until you can provide evidence to support it with measurements. So, what did he miss, and where are the measurements showing that this was important?

Like the time Amir stated the microRendu was not bit perfect, and caused an 8dB rise at the DAC's analog output? We needed measurements to prove that was absurd, and lacking proof by measurement, any stance to the contrary was just a hypothesis?

🤣

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

This was 8 years ago

Plenty of time to sanitize the entire thing and employ revisionist history.

 

The reality is he only corrected himself after several other members openly questioned the result, and none of them provided these mandatory measurements you hold so dear, because even a novice knew Amir's published conclusion was laughably absurd, lazy, reckless, and called everything into question.

 

Either he had no idea how to competently test the device, or he intentionally produced the result he did to create controversy/generate clicks at the expense of a perfectly good device, and to the potential detriment of its manufacturer.

 

In order to then deflect attention from his gaffe and to create additional controversy/clicks, he turned the whole thing into an attack on the supposedly "included" power supply, which he then incorrectly revised to be the "recommended" power supply, when it was in fact neither, just one of several after market options offered (the default order selection was in fact "no power supply" i.e. bring your own).

 

Thats called an agenda, or perhaps an axe to grind, or both, and those bullshit "measurements" he presented were of exactly no use to anyone considering the purchase of a microRendu, weren't they?

 

I'm glad you point out that was early on, because it certainly called exactly everything into question in terms of competence and/or ulterior motives.

 

[MikeyFresh]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Right!? An argument isn’t sufficient to settle a scientific dispute A proper, repeatable measurement — is.

 

Not in the example I cited it wasn't, that one was very easy to laugh off with no proof required at all.

[MikeyFresh]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

A proper, repeatable measurement — is.

 

Ahh, you mean sit down and actually take a listen, right?

 

I guarantee you that an 8dB rise at the analog output would be easily heard by the most causal of observers every time, with little effort, and no ABX required.

 

Oh wait, that would mean Amir actually took a listen before publishing bullshit.

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I think you misunderstand the meaning of measurements. Listening is also a form of measurement, just very imprecise and subject to many errors and frequently not repeatable.

 

Identifying an 8dB rise in analog output requires very little scrutiny, precision, expertise, or exhaustive listening tests, right?

 

So no, I'm sorry, I haven't misunderstood anything at all. Listening would have identified the error before it was published. That listening form of measurement was simply not employed, otherwise the test and measurement error would have been grossly obvious.

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

you’re making a claim about listening being a sufficiently precise and repeatable measurement to prove Amir’s original measurement wrong. 

Yes, I am making that claim, no great precision was needed in determining if an 8dB rise in analog output had occurred or not, and yes that would be repeatable without the need for any exhaustive ABX-type "proof". Grossly obvious to most any causal observer that isn't suffering from impaired hearing.

 

Both repeatable and reliable, the conclusion being no listening was done at all, and a damning review was published in reckless fashion. 

 

Let's bring it back on topic, shall we? Does ASR have your beloved measurements supporting the efficacy of MQA or not?

[MikeyFresh]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Whether or not listening was sufficient to prove the original measurement incorrect is arguing about some other point that was not in the discussion until you brought it up. If you can prove that it was wrong without doing any measurements, including listening, then let’s hear how you’d go about doing it.

 

Translation? Amir can't reliably hear an 8dB difference in analog output, so he would rather rely on faulty measurements to make that claim.

 

Back on-topic: ASR has published measurements to support the efficacy claims of MQA, and these measurements are repeatable?

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Where? As I recall, Amir argued that MQA is an elegant codec. That’s his personal, subjective opinion, and not a measurement. Nothing to repeat. You either agree with him or not.

 

Translation: No, ASR has absolutely no measurements supporting any MQA efficacy claims, yet Amir defends MQA anyway, as apparently in the case of MQA, no such burden of proof by repeatable measurements is required.

 

 The irony of "subjective opinions" being posted by the founder of the "science" site. Wasn't the elegant codec thing really just a parroting of John Atkinson?

[MikeyFresh]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

No idea, but you said there were MQA measurements posted. What was posted was a personal opinion. For some reason, you seem to think too highly of Amir 😃. You expect him not to make any mistakes, and to only state opinions backed up by science. I have no such expectations, and not sure why anyone would. He’s human and has faults, makes mistakes and can hold opinions that are based on personal likes and dislikes, just like anyone else.

 

I didn't say that, I asked you if there were any measurements, it took the form of a question, because if there were, perhaps we'd all be better able to understand Amir's staunch defense of MQA.

 

Only stating opinions backed up by "science"? Yes that is the mantra, dogma, and groupthink of ASR.

 

Thank you Paul, I appreciate your candid response, and I truly appreciate your work in offering valuable freeware such as DeltaWave to the audio community.

[MikeyFresh]

20 hours ago, JoshM said:

There are unique Steely Dan masterings only on MQA CDs

It's also worth noting that Steely Dan's master tapes were destroyed in the Universal Studios fire in 2008. So that MQA-CD is not anything extra special in that regard alone.

 

That doesn't mean a pristine tape copy given a white glove mastering treatment won't sound good, but it is just another example of the record labels screwing buyers with their absolute refusal to provide proper provenance information about these supposedly better and better release versions.

 

I'm willing to bet that nothing has changed at all in this respect, and any chance the label can save some money and use a tape copy as opposed to doing actual archival research and restoration of the original master tape, they do that, every time, no matter the format involved.

 

So be it a CD reissue, SACD, DVD-Audio, or even vinyl, they will always take the lower cost shortcut wherever they can, not telling the buyer,  and the only times they don't are when their hand is forced by the artist or other rights holders. MQA-CD will be no exception to that game.

 

That Steely Dan MQA-CD series will likely sound different, maybe even "better" to some people. But is it really better than previous reissues which did utilize the original master tapes before they were destroyed? I highly doubt it, just as I doubt there are any liner notes admitting the actual provenance, MQA and Universal Music no doubt skip those details.

 

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

I highly doubt it, just as I doubt there are any liner notes admitting the actual provenance, MQA and Universal Music no doubt skip those details.

I'll stand corrected to say a quick check on Discogs shows these liner notes for The Royal Scam on MQA-CD:

 

Tape research: Peter Macchia (Universal Music NY)
DSD flat transferred from US original analogue master tapes by Eli Brown at Universal Music Studios, LA, in 2018.
Edited in DSD by Manabu Matsumura at Universal Music Studios, Tokyo, in 2018

 

Wowser, so they are trying to hitch MQA's wagon to DSD there by saying they used the tape transfer that was originally done for the Japanese SHM-SACD. The part where it goes off the rails is where they say they used the original analog master tapes in 2018, as those were reported to have been destroyed in the fire 10 years prior, way back in 2008.

 

I suspect those liner notes were simply copied from the previous release's packaging  by Universal Music Japan, they may not even have anything to do with the MQA-CD release.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

"MQA does not claim to reconstruct high-resolution data perfectly. The intent is to deliver a high-resolution audio signal that is perceptually very close to the original high-resolution content. MQA involves signal processing that hides information in audio noise. Therefore, MQA is not data-lossless."

 

Ed Meitner

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/meitner-emm-dv2-dsd-mqa-digital-audio

 

Imagine spending 20,000 Euros to not have the data reconstructed perfectly. Boggles the mind.

 

Pretty unclear then just exactly how Jason and Scott could have been been so thoroughly gobsmacked by the painfully obvious differences between the Qobuz 24/192 version of Idle Moments, and the Master Quality Approximated version on TIDAL. Fascination with a blue LED (or is it green)?

 

Of course an additional call to authority/bullshit "seconding" by an audio dealer friend with incredible exclusive access to Peter McGrath's trove of private recordings then seals the deal, doesn't it?

 

Who could possibly question any of that very hot shit? Sounds like a new world was birthed, or maybe an audio revolution is occurring, clearly the biggest thing in digital since the advent of the Compact Disc.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Plus, Roon pays a fee per unfold. 

The total fees paid per month rose dramatically by Roon's own admission when Warner Music removed the standard Redbook versions of their catalog from TIDAL, leaving the listener MQA as the only option.

 

Both Roon and Audirvana were no doubt screwed by that, and it probably contributed to Audirvana needing to go to a subscription pricing model, and Roon needing to raise the price of their subscription.

 

Dirty pool by Warner Music on behalf of/in cahoots with MQA I'd say, and this recent change by Roon seems long overdue. Why should consumers have to pay for that BS?

[MikeyFresh]

27 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

HDTracks.com now peddling MQA:

 

https://www.hdtracks.com/?trk_msg=7T3MQRHPG3JKNETHN9FMP335JK&trk_contact=FOPHCCTN25F6RT5B031DL5G6V4&trk_sid=91PH0ND7OHDC1GH943ARF78AEC&trk_link=E26P7FRFA6AKRD5U12Q07A7RF0&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Explore+the+full+MQA+collection&utm_campaign=HUGE+Hi-Res+Announcement+%2b+25%+Off+New+Hi-Res...#/category/6307e5f5563d08005a06e8ec

 

 

I will never purchase a download from their store again. 

 

Ditto, call me a former customer.

The Qobuz download store gets my business in total, and that had already essentially been the case since I upgraded to their Sublime subscriber tier, however I hadn't ruled out continuing to do business with HDtracks, until now.

Congrats Norman, you join the ranks of ProStudioMasters, what a disgrace.

[MikeyFresh]

48 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

Funny that HDTracks haven't learned from the MoFi troubles. "exactly as it sounded in the studio" is undoubtedly a lie.

Lawsuit incoming.

As if they'd even know exactly how something sounded in any given studio, but absurd to suggest it will then sound exactly the same elsewhere due to the wonders of Master Quality Adulterated encoding.

[MikeyFresh]

I knew there had been some previous mention of mQa and Chesky partnering some time back, didn't realize it was actually 2017, and the piece makes mention of HDtracks offering it "as soon as the store is ready". 

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/chesky-release-mqa-cds-may

 

After a lengthy delay, it's now happening. I wonder if Chesky held out forever not wanting to pay much of anything for this grand privilege, or did Chesky finally cave and sign on the dotted line as originally offered. Who was more desperate? I'm guessing it is mQa that caved and gave it away, though perhaps it is as simple as reaching a deal with the various labels offering albums in mQa, maybe there isn't much of any deal between Chesky and mQa at all, just another version of certain titles to distribute, for example Warner Music Group's catalog.

 

Either way I personally won't be supporting it one iota, all mQa partners get shunned, period.

[MikeyFresh]

46 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Well, most audiophiles believe so many urban legends, that's kind of why mQ-Anon is still kicking.

With the constant support and never ending reinforcement of the mQa marketing bullshit offered by the audio trade press, it's no wonder that at some point perception becomes reality for altogether too many.

 

Toss in the more than implied endorsement offered by various good brand name manufacturers who simply couldn't pass up an opportunity to shift a few more units, and/or got their licenses for nothing or next to nothing if they were shrewd negotiators, and this myth survives (financed by private equity).

 

I applaud the likes of Linn, Benchmark, Ayre, and various others, for taking a not too subtle public stance on this charade called mQa. They seem to be doing OK without it.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

I uninstalled HD Tracks down-loader from my music server and unsubscribed from the email notifications.

Great idea, I'm about to do the same.

[MikeyFresh]

5 minutes ago, Stereo said:

Voting against MQA with your wallet is excellent however I also suggest writing to HDTracks any any other company that offers MQA to complain of their decision to offer MQA as I have done so. The response I have gotten from them is that over the years they have received lots of requests for MQA. If the negative MQA crowd is more vocal than the pro MQA crowd then companies may actually start to go against offering MQA.

Agreed and I did that firs thing,, and got the same kind of response from HDtracks that you are describing.

 

We can thank the trade press for that perceived demand, and to some extent the manufacturers who were onboard too. They created a demand (however small in the grand scheme of things) just so they could shift more units with a new "feature", even though I'm sure in most cases their design engineers would have known it to be bullshit.

[MikeyFresh]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That has always blown my mind. People actually believe you can make something better than the original. 

"Better than lossless."