MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

And there is partaking in/enabling the spreading of unsavoury chat about a brand

What about the over-savory waxing poetic bullshit about a brand that's exactly what was practiced here and elsewhere ad nauseam by the now infamous LS, and various other likely paid influencers including HB, and PV on behalf of MQA? 

 

Then there is the the trade press, and their orgasmic reaction to all things MQA, literally a birthing of new worlds by their take. Shall we agree there is sufficient need to counter balance against that too, or are you more in agreement that there is a revolution in digital audio called MQA that is the real "story"?

 

Causal observer here to provide balance, or spirited BS artist furthering that cause?

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

 

It's a long thread, I wonder if you've read very much of it, and if so what exact vitriol you refer to?

 

Fair assessment by means of testing and measurement, as well as an acknowledgment of the systemic threats MQA represents to both consumers, and the music production industry on various levels should this scheme survive do not constitute "vitriol".

[MikeyFresh]

12 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

Comes with the territory of being successful, I guess.

That would certainly then un-include MQA, based on all previous financial reporting, and streaming market penetration via the non-player TIDAL.

 

[MikeyFresh]

On 9/6/2022 at 10:55 AM, Brahan Seer said:

So, why not audio. An obsession with 'it's the OG or nothing' strikes me as a somewhat prehistoric approach to tech/music/life. 

Except when the so-called new "post Nyquist" approach involves total BS like correction of time smear, or the total correction of supposed known flaws in all ADCs... etc.

 

Thats when the BS meter reads off the fucking charts.

 

You've asked for examples of various things in previous posts. Might we request you provide some examples of MQA having provided anything at all in the way of a better than "prehistoric" approach to tech/music/life?

 

Please also define "prehistoric" in the context of digital audio.

[MikeyFresh]

5 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Speaking of Tidal, how successful have they been pushing MQA?

 

Fair point, I'd say very unsuccessful, so no real parallel with "success" at all in terms of broader market penetration, despite what the hifi trade press might have one believing.

 

Another way to view that lies in MQA's public financial statements. Turnover in particular is nothing shy of pathetic, in relation to debt incurred and coming due.

 

@Rt66indierock this can no longer be viewed as a startup company burning through its initial capitalization with a clear eye towards profitability at this juncture, or can it?

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

I like the sound of MQA. I like the tech.

So upsampling with a leaky MP filter is your cup of tea then? That's really great, good for you, some real cutting edge tech there.

 

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

I think that this forum is often massively unkind, unprofessional, unetc, etc, etc - so, I am addressing that.

Nice try, you mean you are once again going to that same tired old MQA playbook in attempting to change the narrative to some sort of unfair, uncivil internet accusation instead of providing some substance as to why you (or we) should consider MQA in a different light. Given all we know about the threat to the music distribution industry and consumer choice that MQA represents, and the published and repeatable measurements that illustrate the emperor certainly has no clothes, what are you really addressing at all here?

[MikeyFresh]

11 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

Except TIDAL doesn't - passing hi-res MQA tracks through the 16bit/44.1kHz TIDAL HiFi quality connection bit depth reducing resampling mangle just makes them corrupted MQA tracks.

 

Evidently he missed that memo sometime back, or conveniently filed it away, all the better to substantiate "liking the tech", whatever that actually means.

[MikeyFresh]

28 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

'replacing all music with a single deliverable' But that won't happen will it.

Will it, and if not how can you be so sure? Inside scoop there?

 

With that intention already very publicly stated, and a version of that already having occurred with regard to WMG's removal of standard Redbook albums from TIDAL, with the record labels as part owners of MQA, what is your proof that replacing all music with one deliverable isn't the end game here?

 

Moreover, with both MQA and the record labels having a less than stellar track record with regard to forthcoming and truthful behavior, why would anyone have reason to believe they wouldn't say one thing and do another at any given juncture? They could now deny seeking a one deliverable scenario 'til the cows come home, but why would anyone have cause to believe them?

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

Apple and Microsoft have countered criticism. My point is, how many folks on here are actively boycotting these companies?

 

I see no possible way to compare MQA to Apple or Microsoft, that's a poor analogy, and one which attempts to paint MQA as some kind of technology leader in the same vein as those tech giants, which they are not.

 

With a pathetic £459,820 in turnover for their last reporting year, MQA does not belong in any tech giant or technology innovator discussion. Whether one likes or supports the business practices of Apple or Microsoft is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand here.

[MikeyFresh]

12 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Holy guacamole. Like I said, lots of paranoia. 

Nope just substance, something you've not come close to mustering here.

 

16 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Sounds like vitriol

Or trolling with no actual point to make, other than the very same old tired MQA talking points seeking to shift the narrative when they've got nothing else to present:

 

"Hey I think it sounds good", "I like the cool tech", "MQA is a company like Apple or Microsoft", "You guys are full of vitriol", "You guys are paranoid"... and so on.

 

Rinse and repeat, but don't ever respond to any valid criticisms or concerns at all ever, just pretend they don't actually exist, or that they absolutely pale in comparison to the supposed problem of an uncivil, mean, paranoid, internet cadre.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

Does it make vinyl sound more like vinyl?

Yes for sure, and also this according to Analog Planet:

 

"The MQA encoder is said to “de-blur” the recording of artifacts that can be introduced in the transfer process, such as “time smear.” Then, the MQA decoding and rendering in the DAC is said to provide a clean pathway to bringing the music back into the analog realm, without new artifacts being reintroduced during conversion."

 

More total bullshit.

[MikeyFresh]

37 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Maybe Mofi should have used this instead of the uncorrected, blurry DSD256. 😱

Absolutely... DSD256, so fucking blurry! Are there any hearing aids with MQA? 

 

41 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Lossy digital to lossy analogue copy. Looks like mQa and LPs were made for each other. 

Well according to Analog Planet, MQA-LP is the result of a massive undertaking, and produces an unheard of accomplishment. I trust those underwriting it are comfortable with the return.

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, bambadoo said:

Hmm

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/warner-music-universal-music-sued-for-patent-infringement-by-blue-spike-over-mqa-encoding-process/

 

Thats very interesting how they are going after the labels for having used the encoding process as opposed to going after MQA themselves. Perhaps they are going after MQA too, if not, that might suggest it is the labels who created the batch encoding process.

[MikeyFresh]

44 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Aren't you guys concerned that you're letting yourselves get robbed from superior audio

Definitely no concern there, what would you base such a concern on since you last graced these pages, any new developments, facts, or substantive defense of Master Quality Adulterated that we might have missed?

 

46 minutes ago, GUTB said:

At this point it seems certain that it's here to stay

I don't think so, have you had a look at the financials lately? You know, the ones that show absolutely pathetic turnover levels year after year, along with losses of roughly £5 million per year, and heavy reliance on a tiny bit player on the streaming provider side?

 

49 minutes ago, GUTB said:

certainly longer than HDCD for example.

Thats really not saying much is it?

 

51 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I feel I'm getting ready to come back in.

Go for it man, all in... go large or go home.

[MikeyFresh]

9 hours ago, GUTB said:

....what happened with Mobile Fidelity?

I dunno, but the real question is what ever happened with your MQA-CD player?

 

With shipping from Japan suspended during the pandemic for many months, and then once restored only at double the previous cost, I'd be curious how many MQA-CDs you've laid hands on by now.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

The technical and anti-monopolist arguments against MQA are potent ones - and were made comprehensively by Archimago, Chris, and others a few years ago.

Exactly, though you've conveniently left out the part about there never having been any credible response or substantive defense/rebuttal by team MQA. Yes, that would include the trade press.

 

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Since then, the thread has become an echo chamber for a few single-minded zealots who get up every day to check "Vaporware"

Not true at all, we've had the likes of LS (your infamous boss), PV, GUTB, and various others (now long gone/banned for trolling) chime in repeatedly with the same BS talking points and lame attempts to deflect the conversation right back to the same places they've always tried to steer things, that being the myth of the rabid hoard of internet meanies who attack MQA (you just did that yourself, again), the supposed lack of civil discourse, the "problem" of anonymous post authors, the supreme call to authority of certain engineers, etc... ad nauseam. 

 

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Sorry, it happens less and less these days.

Likely a symptom of Master Quality Adulterated's inevitable fade into oblivion, but still happens often enough, as evidenced quite recently by Brahan Seer's drive by with all the same bullshit, regurged anew.

 

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

You'll need another hobby. Could I suggest high end audio?

Sorry but we've already got that hobby with no help or direction from you, and increasingly, no influence at all from your magazine.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

50 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I don't know.

Did someone get their marching orders from LS?

Maybe, and if so, how very embarrassing.

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

I mean....yes? I assume that, by default, those who put anything other than what the intended into their master recordings.

Nonsensical (say what?).

 

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

MQA's superior time domain processing.

Demonstrated/proven to be a false claim. Marketing bullshit with no efficacy or basis in fact, but parroted repeatedly as if it were real. Repeating the same falsehoods over and over doesn't make them miraculously come true, it just makes the parrot look dumb or very easily misled. 

 

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, Revelation Sound said:

95% of the recordings sound better than Spotify on their highest quality settings.

Fantastic, but Spotify is lossy (as is MQA), so what's your point? Tidal is less lossy than Spotify?

 

3 hours ago, Revelation Sound said:

If you dont like it, don't use it. No one is forcing you too.

No shit Sherlock, no one is forced to use any streaming service ever, but you've just regurgitated an MQA talking point that completely skates right past all of the real issues at hand.

 

3 hours ago, Revelation Sound said:

Trying to defend the reason not to use it is a waste of my time.

Say what? Don't worry man, no one is asking you to waste any time on anything at all.

 

3 hours ago, Revelation Sound said:

I tried some other streaming services and they were not any better except their catalog was lower.

Depth of catalog on any given service is a matter of opinion/personal taste in music, and not a matter of proclamation by any given individual(s). No one cares if you have Beyoncé Lemonade in heavy rotation.

 

3 hours ago, Revelation Sound said:

And a little background, I have a 10K stereo system that includes McIntosh and Focal.

GUTB? Shall we conclude a certain threshold/dollar expenditure on a stereo system elevates one's ability to make good decisions about which streaming service to use/not use, i.e. any direct correlation between every additional $1k spent and achieving audio oracle status? Safe to say Class D sucks?

 

3 hours ago, Revelation Sound said:

I am also an audio engineer and have worked in recording studios for over 25 years. 

Ahh, the old call to authority. You must really know a lot. I assume you use MQA's mastering tools and encoder to do all your own white glove treatments? 

 

Do you have a Master Quality Approximated ADC in your studio, or do you just trust that the 6th unfold fully corrects for all deficiencies/flaws in all previously manufactured ADCs, producing deblurred sound similar to listening in the vacuum of space, no air = no time smear? Is Master Quality Adulterated lossless, or is it better than lossless™ ?

 

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, firedog said:

Nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't try to sell it as somehow superior or "authentic". 

Or force feed it to you as Warner Music did to Tidal subscribers.

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I thought that it was the Aphex Aural Distorter...   Sometimes my memory fails, but I do remember bad things most of the time...  Linda R liked it also.

The first version of the distorter could be reverse engineered, then the processing undone.  I played with the idea as a toy, but lost interest.

 

Why, why, why?

With kind humor,

John

 

 

 

 

 

I remember the liner notes from the 1979 Eagles release The Long Run...

 

"Special tip of the engineer's cap to Buddy Thornton for making sure all of the electrons went to their proper places.
This album was recorded and mixed utilizing M.C.I. consoles and tape machines.
This album was NOT mixed through the Aphex Aural Exciter."

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, UkPhil said:

$10 a track for all you budding newbies 

 

Shouldn't it really say lossy mastering, or more specifically lossy encoding/decoding, packaged in a lossless container?

[MikeyFresh]

40 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

I wonder does it mean they will provide both a lossless mastered version (like in 24/88.1 or 96kHz) plus the MQA lossy compressed (24-bit 44.1/48) as well?

 

Poorly written, unclear, sentence.

Good question, I would absolutely think they should provide both, unless of course there is something in it for them not to do so.

[MikeyFresh]

24 minutes ago, yahooboy said:

Well another two companies not getting my money........

I know what you mean, however unless one were a subscriber to TIDAL, there is no impact to any other end users of a device such as the WiiM Mini that I can see. So long as they don't raise their retail price for the hardware, that "upgrade" via firmware could just easily be ignored as it has no bearing on anything but TIDAL unless I'm missing something.

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, yahooboy said:

Except for the fact that any manufacturer could misconstrue any purchase as condoning MQA

True, though in this case the product has already been out for quite some time without any MQA support, so unless WiiM thinks they are seeing a sudden sharp rise in sales due to the addition of some new feature(s), I'm not sure why they would be apt to attribute much of anything to a such fringe/gimmick feature on a marginal market share service such as TIDAL.

 

5 minutes ago, yahooboy said:

However You look at it, any purchase of a Whim product would send money in the direction of MQA

Since we don't really know what deal WiiM may have struck with regard to MQA licensing, it's really hard to say, except that it isn't going to be much money for MQA when the street price of a WiiM Mini is $89, and they've probably already had their sales wave crest after being on the market for a year +, and getting some positive initial press. WiiM will likely need to roll out a V2 edition of the mini, or something else entirely, to get any big influx of new sales at this point.

 

I had heard some suggestion in the past that WiiM's product road map is likely headed in the direction of powered speakers that incorporate the streamer aspect, à la Sonos, with this Mini device having been intended as a cheap gateway into their brand.