MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ha!

[Digital Assassin]

I bet has Bob Stuart has a dedicated guest room in Harley's house.

[#Yoda#]

1 hour ago, Digital Assassin said:

I bet has Bob Stuart has a dedicated guest room in Harley's house.

 

Not necessarily. Beside Meridian/MQA the major labels could be the winner in this game. There is not longer any need to sell their "crown jewels" in an open format, having an alleged alternative in a closed folded (compressed) format, not to mention the  DRM capabilities of MQA. As we can already notice, the very most new albums are issued at only 24/44.1 or /48 and not in the resolution they had been mastered.

 

On 15.8.2017 at 6:12 AM, firedog said:

I think if you check you will find most albums are made in 24.44.1 or 48 and not higher resolutions.

 

Maybe ten years ago, you were right, but today the very most albums are produced in 24/88.2  or even higher resolutions simply because, as far as I know, iTunes requires a minimum resolution for incoming files for their store at 24/88.2.

 

Perhaps Robert Harley is someway a "useful idiot" for the major labels and Meridian. Useful idiot "was a term coined by Lenin (presumably in Russian) for those naive souls in the West who thought the Bolshevik revolution would lead to the new utopia and did the Russians' propaganda work for them." 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

iTunes doesn't require anything above 44.1. Apple asks for it, but that's it. 

 

44.1 is still the norm because the need for so many channels. 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

 

Not necessarily. Beside Meridian/MQA the major labels could be the winner in this game. There is not longer any need to sell their "crown jewels" in an open format, having an alleged alternative in a closed folded (compressed) format, not to mention the  DRM capabilities of MQA. As we can already notice, the very most new albums are issued at only 24/44.1 or /48 and not in the resolution they had been mastered.....

 

Perhaps Robert Harley is someway a "useful idiot"...

 

 

 

 

I am wondering if the cynicism (rather than some kind of idiot syndrome) of Robert, JA, and the rest of the "audiophile press" got the better of them.  Robert's original "MQA from 30 thousand feet" article lays out pretty good the business case and the anxiety that drives the labels and "the industry" to wanting a DRM solution such as MQA.  Contradictory (and rather perversely) he also tries to argue how it is all a good thing for the consumer.  All these folks (and even our own Chris) seem to believe that the labels hold ALL the cards and will get their DRM one way or another and that MQA (or something like it) is not an if but a when as far as a standard format goes. The rise of streaming (as opposed to ownership) of course plays right into this thinking.

 

They then convinced themselves that the SQ aspect of MQA (or anything like it) would and will justify the whole mess for the consumer and the industry.

 

However, the reality of the situation is that there is real consumer & manufacturer resistance to this change in our standard format and MQA is still to this day, no matter how you slice it, largely vaporware.  This of course still could change.  For me a real warning sign will be if and when I walk into my local Verizon store and one of the 169 bullet points of the phone I am looking at indicates it is "MQA" certified/enabled (sort of like how Dolby was omnipresent at one point).  However, I am not as cynical as the "audiophile press" is and thus I would not at all be surprised if Hillary MQA does not win...

[firedog]

23 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

 

Not necessarily. Beside Meridian/MQA the major labels could be the winner in this game. There is not longer any need to sell their "crown jewels" in an open format, having an alleged alternative in a closed folded (compressed) format, not to mention the  DRM capabilities of MQA. As we can already notice, the very most new albums are issued at only 24/44.1 or /48 and not in the resolution they had been mastered.

 

 

Maybe ten years ago, you were right, but today the very most albums are produced in 24/88.2  or even higher resolutions simply because, as far as I know, iTunes requires a minimum resolution for incoming files for their store at 24/88.2

 

 

I think what actually happens is that most music is recorded at 24/44.1 or 24/48 and possibly Mastered in 88 or 96. Not the same as being recorded in those high resolutions.

[#Yoda#]

42 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

iTunes doesn't require anything above 44.1. Apple asks for it, but that's it. 

 

44.1 is still the norm because the need for so many channels. 

 

From Apples "Mastered for iTunes" guideline:

 

"Best Practices for Mastering for iTunes

Our latest high resolution encoding process ensures that your music is transparently and faithfully distributed in the way you intended it to be heard. However, before you submit songs to iTunes for encoding, there are some best practices you can follow to ensure that your audio is optimized for iTunes.

Provide High Resolution Masters

To take best advantage of our latest encoders send us the highest resolution master file possible, appropriate to the medium and the project.

An ideal master will have 24-bit 96kHz resolution. These files contain more detail from which our encoders can create more accurate encodes. However, any resolution above 16-bit 44.1kHz, including sample rates of 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, will benefit from our encoding process.

Don’t upsample files to a higher resolution than their original format. Upsampling won’t recover or add information to an audio file. Don’t provide files that have been downsampled and dithered for a CD. This degrades the file’s audio quality.

As technology advances and bandwidth, storage, battery life, and processor power increase, keeping the highest quality masters available in our systems allows for full advantage of future improvements to your music. Also, though it may not be apparent because there may not always be a physical, tangible master created in LP or CD format, the iTunes catalog forms an important part of the world’s historical and cultural record. These masters matter—especially given the move into the cloud on post-PC devices."

 

Not at least because of this, today most recording studios are able to record and master new albums in 24/88.2 or 24/92. 

 

@firedog: I'm using XiVero's MusicScope, an audio analysis tool, and If I purchased an album that is not correctly labeled, I complain immediately. Fortunately it is decreasing, even at Qobuz.com. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Good. That pretty much says what I said. High res is a recommendation, not a requirement and studios are capable of high res, not necessarily using it. 

[#Yoda#]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Good. That pretty much says what I said. High res is a recommendation, not a requirement and studios are capable of high res, not necessarily using it. 

 

Anyway, it is obvious that a lot of artists who released their preceding albums in 24/92 or higher resolutions are now restricted to 24/44.1 or /48 for their new albums. I wouldn't wonder when we will see them as MQA file in a 24/96 or /192 equivalent, soon.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, #Yoda# said:

Maybe ten years ago, you were right, but today the very most albums are produced in 24/88.2  or even higher resolutions

Half of the MQA tracks on Tidal are from 44.1/48 kHz masters.

[Rt66indierock]

7 hours ago, daverich4 said:

In the current issue of TAS, Robert Harley says that with the support of Sony, Warner Bros. and Universal Music, an MQA future is "a fait accompli." All y'all can go home now. Mr. Harley has declared a winner.

 

It’s the kind of thing an editor writes when they are trying to regain control of an agenda they thought was under control until January 2^nd.  You should have seen the look on his face at the opening of the Los Angles Audio Show when I told him the way he evaded a question about MQA at the Legends seminar at T.H.E. Show in Irvine last year gave me tremendous direction on where look .  And he was at the LAAS MQA Seminar when things went south. He glared at me as he was leaving. But I still got to have another conversation Bob Stuart and got his contact information.

 

The Absolute Sound has about 30,000 print subscribers and a smaller web presence than The Computer Audiophile. Robert Harley can write what he wants. The audience he reaches is too small to matter. And he knows as well as I do that high resolution is not making it in the marketplace.

[rickca]

Here's a great example of what can happen in the world of streaming.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/verizon-to-start-throttling-video-for-all-customers-2017-08-22

 

[Rt66indierock]

10 minutes ago, rickca said:

Here's a great example of what can happen in the world of streaming.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/verizon-to-start-throttling-video-for-all-customers-2017-08-22

 

I get two texts a month from AT&T. One says you have exceeded 16.5 GB this month and second one saying they may reduce my speed after 22 GB.

[mav52]

25 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

I get two texts a month from AT&T. One says you have exceeded 16.5 GB this month and second one saying they may reduce my speed after 22 GB.

I get these as well. Their plan is to get customers to go unlimited for a fee.  I guess it all comes down to what a customer wants and what the customer is willing to pay for streaming.,

[Bob Stern]

33 minutes ago, rickca said:

Here's a great example of what can happen in the world of streaming.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/verizon-to-start-throttling-video-for-all-customers-2017-08-22

 

20 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

I get two texts a month from AT&T. One says you have exceeded 16.5 GB this month and second one saying they may reduce my speed after 22 GB.

 

The FCC under Trump administration specifically rejected the principal of net neutrality, so  ISP's are expected to begin throttling streaming music and video from services who fail to pay whatever ransom the ISP's demand.  Big services like Netflix will pay up, but small audiophile streaming services can’t afford to.

 

The only constraint is that the ISP's realize that if they get too greedy too quickly, the public will pressure Congress to enact an net neutrality law.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, mav52 said:

I get these as well. Their plan is to get customers to go unlimited for a fee.  I guess it all comes down to what a customer wants and what the customer is willing to pay for streaming.,

Unlimited*

 

 

 

* Fair use** restrictions apply.

 

 

 

** No more than half of what you paid for.

[Rt66indierock]

10 minutes ago, mav52 said:

I get these as well. Their plan is to get customers to go unlimited for a fee.  I guess it all comes down to what a customer wants and what the customer is willing to pay for streaming.,

 

I have several things in my life that are grandfathered. One is my AT&T plan and the other are my 1985 Ping Eye 2 irons.

[rickca]

If MQA plays out the way some have speculated with complete control of distribution, it sure seems like a good potential case for collusion or price fixing among the major labels.  Maybe we'll have a juicy lawsuit 10 years from now.  Of course, currently there is zero evidence to support this.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, rickca said:

If MQA plays out the way some have speculated with complete control of distribution, it sure seems like a good potential case for collusion or price fixing among the major labels.  Maybe we'll have a juicy lawsuit 10 years from now.  Of course, currently there is zero evidence to support this.

Doesn't matter if there's evidence. They write the laws. Literally.

[Bob Stern]

Another possible explanation for why Stereophile reviewers universally praise MQA: 

 

It definitely sounds different (probably because of aliasing distortion).  The reviewer assumes this difference must be an improvement because Bob Stuart and Meridian are respected digital audio experts with many publications in the AES journal and highly reviewed products.

 

(Stuart & Craven's infallibility is undercut by their having quietly abandoned apodizing filters, but I doubt the reviewers noticed that.)

[Jud]

31 minutes ago, Bob Stern said:

The only constraint is that the ISP's realize that if they get too greedy too quickly, the public will pressure Congress to enact an net neutrality law.

 

Public pressure, that should work against corporate advertising and donors, right?

[Fokus]

5 hours ago, Bob Stern said:

Another possible explanation for why Stereophile reviewers universally praise MQA:

 

The only explanation you need is that praising MQA sells copy, which sells DACs, which sells ads.

 

Sound quality has nothing to do with this. Sound quality can simply be suggested to the reader.

 

 

I repeat: in my limited experience (before all of this started to bore me), when I heard differences, a different master was clearly involved. In all other cases the MQA sounded just as good, or bad, as the standard file.

[Bob Stern]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

The only explanation you need is that praising MQA sells copy, which sells DACs, which sells ads.

 

I don’t think Stereophile is that cynical and unethical.  John Atkinson has stated repeatedly that Stereophile forbids its reviewers from accepting perpetual free "loans" of equipment.  Reviewers must return equipment after a reasonable time or else buy it for dealer cost (about 40% off retail).  I believe they are the only audiophile magazine, print or online, that has imposed this ethical constraint, and I respect John Atkinson for that.  Unfortunately, I suspect Stereophile abandoned that policy in the last year or two, but it is merely my suspicion based on inferences, unsupported by direct evidence.

 

Regardless, it is my impression that Stereophile reviewers publish their honest opinions.  Where bias unavoidably occurs is that no magazine pays its reviewers more than a token amount.  The primary incentive for reviewers to write reviews is that they get the opportunity to trial equipment that they have a potential interest in acquiring.  Therefore, when the magazine decides to review a piece of equipment, they try to send it to a reviewer who has some interest in that brand or model, often having formerly owned other models from that brand.  Consequently, if a brand has a typical character, the person who reviews it often is someone who tends to like that character.

 

But even that bias is not necessarily bad.  A music review by someone who likes the performer or composer is more likely to be insightful and helpful to other aficionados of that performer or composer.

 

Also, I respect that formal reviews in Stereophile almost always include comparisons with competing products, which often is not true in other magazines, rendering the latter reviews meaningless.

 

Moreover, most reviews by audiophiles like us are equally biased.  Detailed comparative evaluations by forum members are relatively uncommon on this or any other audiophile forum.  Instead, the vast majority of evaluations are from audiophiles who recently decided to buy the product, so they are praising it.  In fact, if a forum member posts a negative opinion about the sound quality of a product, he risks getting lambasted by owners of that product.  (As happened to me on two widely separated occasions a few years ago when I reported my evaluations from a couple of shootouts that a friend and I did.)

[Fokus]

2 hours ago, Bob Stern said:

 

I don’t think Stereophile is that cynical and unethical.  John Atkinson has stated repeatedly that Stereophile forbids its reviewers from accepting perpetual free "loans"...

 

 

What has that got to do with it?

 

Magazines sell stories. Positive stories sell better.

 

You can bomb new sound format 'OBR' once. You can praise it each month again. Which attracts more readers?

 

[Ajax]

11 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have several things in my life that are grandfathered. One is my AT&T plan and the other are my 1985 Ping Eye 2 irons.

 

My all time favourite golf clubs. The way the hosel sat on the ground just felt right. 

 

Two items I really really loved, that I stupidly (no other word fits) sold, was my Linn Sondek LP12 turntable and my Ping Eye 2 irons.

 

I'm sure I had good reasons at the time but can't possible think of what they could possibly have been.

 

......... back to the evils of MQA