MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I disagree. Who are you, or anyone else, to say what people can or can't enjoy? I couldn't care less if people enjoy music, or equipment, or both. If people are happy, who want to be happy, that's great.

 

What's next, only a certain type of music is OK?

 

I think with any audiophile/hobbyist, the realty of this is always somewhere in the middle. Pretty much everyone likes music to one extent or another, however not so many people seem to care very much about the reproduced quality, and the gear associated with that. Many others fall someplace in between where they care about both, with one or the other to a greater or lesser extent. Nothing wrong with any particular approach or behavior that leads to enjoyment though as you said. 

 

I do agree however that a certain "science" site and in particular it's chief "reviewer" seem not to listen to much music at all, and often submit reviews of things based purely on measurements alone, with no actual listening involved by their own admission, which is ridiculous (DACs ranked by SINAD as a buying guide?).

[MikeyFresh]

9 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

joyeux Noël!!!

Can anyone guess how many times MQA is mentioned in this speaker informercial, sorry, review?

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-alexia-v-loudspeaker

Season's greetings!

 

I'll guess 6 times, which on the upfront would seem ridiculous or nigh on impossible given its a loudspeaker infomercial, er...review.

 

How'd I do?

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

Very close! 7 times. 6.5 technically..since it is mentioned one with a typo.."MQ"...Master Quack? (Feel free to check my count!)

 

this paragraph is a beauty:

 

"Skip ahead to Peter McGrath's visit. In addition to indulging in some of Peter's wondrous recordings—Peter is not shy about extolling the role MQA remastering has played in the glorious sound of his earlier and current recording efforts—"

 

Laughable!

 

That is laughable, I intentionally chose what I thought would be an absurd amount of MQA mentions in a loudspeaker review, and lo and behold, that same number seemed both reasonable and warranted by both the writer and the editor of the trade publication.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

They are available now.

 

Lets see if I'm reading this right:

 

Loss of £4,305,689

Interim funding of £2.1 million granted in January to stay afloat through March 31st.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

On the bright side for them, mQa lost less money than the previous year :~)

 

MQA therefore lossless in 2021?

 

Hmmm... "Material uncertainty related to going concern"

 

2021 Turnover: £657,631

 

Employee headcount grew from 25 to 30 (wages and salaries up 13% YOY)

 

Net Liabilities: (£9,079,406)

P&L account: (£36,337,891)

 

Ouch, in the hole pretty damn deep, and turnover is still pathetic. Another big infusion of cash is needed, get out the checkbook Reinet.

 

[MikeyFresh]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

Interim funding from whom, I wonder?

I wonder too and would have to presume Reinet provided it, perhaps just an advance on what has become a yearly £5 million "loan".

 

Last year they filed at the end of January almost right at the deadline, and the £5 million in Reinet funding was established at that point if I'm remembering it right. This year they filed at the end of December, maybe Reinet was only willing to commit to £2.1 million (lifeline through March) at that particular juncture.

 

Debt costs more to service these days of course, perhaps Reinet is finally getting a bad taste in their mouth? With the turnover still just £657,631 incurring more and more debt sure looks like throwing good money after bad.

[MikeyFresh]

41 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Averaged, this is 22K £ turnover per employee ....
 

 

Wow, that's not even remotely close to being viable.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

 

What I do not get is that we are looking at the report of 2021.

IIf I get it right , the interim funding was ment to stay afloat throughMarch 31st.  How did they sustain the 9 remaning months in 2022 then?

Should they not be completely run out of funds by now?

 

 

 

Under U.K. law they are allowed to file one year late, and have been doing so all along as best I can remember, so yes they are just filing the 2021 financial statements.

 

As you note, their forward looking statements and comments about funding pertain not to 2022, which hasn't been filed yet and won't be for another approximately 12 months, but to the here and now of early 2023.

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, stefano_mbp said:

BluOS  … NAD and Bluesound 

 

...along with PSB loudspeakers are all part of Canada-based Lenbrook Group.

 

They aren't just a bit player in the industry, making their MQA-CD comments all the more surprising/embarrassing.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

Maybe I am crazy but how can the SACD layer be MQA?

You aren't, it can't.

 

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

It is my understanding that the only MQA encoded version of this album was the CD layer.

Thats correct, only the CD layer of the hybrid disc is MQA infected, your DXD file is of course the true master recording and has absolutely nothing to do with MQA.

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

I corrected him in the comments. I'm sure I'll get a nasty response from him. He's been told before he is incorrect about MQA, but he never processes the info and reacts as if he's been wronged. 

He should really just thank you and stand corrected, however past track record certainly suggests that just won't happen.

 

He's also incorrect in describing this as: "when you stream it from your drive if your DAC does MQA it will unfold the original 384/24 bit DXD "master file".

 

Sorry MF... this and all DXD has a sample rate of 352.8kHz (not 384), and in this case the bit depth of the original DXD recording is 32-bit (not 24), and the DXD download is even offered as 32-bit (stereo).

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

https://magicvinyldigital.net/2021/08/06/patricia-barber-clique-review-dxd-2-0-dxd-5-1/

 

Quite an exhaustive comparison, very well done.

 

I guess in 2021 there wasn't yet a 32-bit DXD release. NativeDSD now offers that too, truly a master quality consumer edition if there ever was one.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Doubly astounding, as Andrew clearly knows that Fremer's technical claims about MQA ("a 24/384 master file") are simply incorrect. 

It isn't a matter for debate, no matter what any authority says.

Exactly, but instead of accepting the correction which would have been simple, MF moves the goalposts, ignoring the mistakes he made, and uses a call to authority to try to substantiate what he wrote.

 

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Michael has promised to bring Jim Anderson (another JA!) into the conversation. Can't we wait to hear his take on this?

Based on money, NDAs, and the fact this recording is DXD, no I don't see the point. The recording itself has nothing to do with stupid MQA and the entire title and premise of MF's piece there are fatally flawed.

 

The headline itself is completely ridiculous: "How Best to Hear Patricia Barber's "Clique!" This is a DXD recording, 32-bit/352.8kHz native sample rate, and it is available for download as exactly that. It's also available in essentially that same quality when listening to the SACD layer of the hybrid disc, or as a DSD download in what amounts to smaller file sizes than the DXD master requires.

 

No one including the NDA restricted (and money compensated) producer or recording engineer is ever going to agree with MF that the best way to hear Clique! is bullshit MQA when the actual DXD and DSD are so readily available, and superior too.

 

We don't need to call in the technical experts to see that MF was wrong in several different ways. His entire assertion is absurd, and his original statements are indeed factually incorrect as commented on in Tracking Angle by @firedogamong others. The deep technical assessment then linked to here in a subsequent post by @Pierre LeMonfconfirms what we already knew.

 

We also already knew that both MF, and ARQ have absolutely no idea whether they are right or wrong about anything regarding MQA, but they will dig their heels in and fight about it until the cows come home anyway due to their high brow attitudes and egos, and the massive misinformation campaign that the trade press has continued to dump on consumers on behalf of Master Quality Adulterated.

 

Great job MF, you've proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that "SOME TRACKING ANGLE READERS MIGHT BE SURPRISED". I'm sure they are surprised at the incompetence, misinformation, stubborn denials, desperate calls to authority, and subsequent attempts at click bait, by once again portraying the anti-MQA community as the bad guys in all this. Pathetic.

[MikeyFresh]

42 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

For the record, I do understand that MQA is a lossy format, having been convinced quite some time ago by the explanations put forward  on this site by well-informed posters including Archimago, Chris, and others.

 

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Chris points out that audiophiles  have a choice when it comes to which version of Clique they choose to listen to.

Absolutely, and so given the above, how can anyone keep a straight face or claim to know anything at all in evaluating the efficacy of these different choices in headlining a published piece with the following:

How Best to Hear Patricia Barber's "Clique!"

SOME TRACKING ANGLE READERS MIGHT BE SURPRISED

Clique bait?

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Schwarz emphasizes that the "reference" is the actual 24/382 DXD file available from Native DSD and MF is wrong if he equates that version with the CD-MQA.

Hard stop, though you too have the sample rate wrong, but we'll chalk that up to a simple typo/poor attention to detail.

 

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Yet Michael states that the MQA version sounds better than the DSD64 option on the SACD.

You moved the goal posts. MF stated that the MQA-CD was the best way to listen to Clique!, didn't he, and he said in doing so one would be listening to the DXD master, didn't he? Now you seek to create a battle between the MQA-CD and the DSD64, for which we've already seen the technical data, but that data isn't good enough for you based on MF's superb sense of hearing in now his mid-seventies?

 

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

If MQA is offering less data than a competing format, why do some critical listeners  think it sounds better

Because the onslaught of marketing BS fully supported to this day ad nauseam by the trade press in pieces such as the recent one in question have told them what to expect to hear, and they've invested their money in encoded files and hardware decoders accordingly.

 

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

why do some recording professionals utilize it in their production methodology?

They don't, it's all post-production BS gimmickery accompanied by a check. I don't think you'll actually find Anderson/Schwarz on record as having said MQA played any role in their production methodology, but they are probably bound by NDA/wise not to state this was merely a marketing decision driven by someone being written a check.

 

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

The necessary comparison, then, is between the NativeDSD DXD version of Clique and the MQA-CD.

I'd get out the popcorn except I'm not sure what the logic is there, the DXD is the master, we've already established that by kind comment from Ulrike Schwarz, and the MQA-CD is a lossy version of it. 

 

TL-DR: 

 

MQA-CD = Master Quality Adulterated

DXD = the actual master edited for consumer release

[MikeyFresh]

42 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Michael said this:

"The DXD file sounds better than the disc's DSD layer: cleaner transients, greater transparency, etc."

He said it believing that he was hearing the full-resolution "reference" file.

That is precisely the point, he was not listening to the full-resolution reference file at all. He was listening to a lossy version of it, but he misled the Tracking Angle's readership in stating he was listening to the DXD, and that it was "the best" way to hear that recording, and purportedly besting the DSD in the areas of "cleaner transients, greater transparency, etc" whatever the hell that means. Cleaner transients is a new one for me, I'd like to see MF provide a definition or deeper description of that one.

 

42 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I'm interested in hearing how the real reference (the NativeDSD file) sounds in comparison to the allegedly fake one (the MQA-CD.)

Nothing is "allegedly", we already know by kind comment from Ulrike Schwarz which is the real reference, and by examination of two different outside source's measurements which one is the lossy imposter misrepresented as DXD by Michael Fremer.

 

42 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

But I'd like to make the comparison myself. If I don't hear a difference (or, God forbid, prefer CD-MQA) your response will be fairly predictable. If I prefer the Native DSD DXD file, you'll say "I told you so." Which is fine.

All good and you are most certainly allowed to like or prefer what you will, in your system, in the acoustic of your own listening space. I'll be providing no arguments there at all. But your listening take cannot refute whats already been established, that being the MQA-CD is not the master, and not DXD as MF contended, just a lossy approximation of it. In that sense it simply cannot be the best way for Tracking Angle readers to experience Clique!.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Perhaps you are, as well.  Why do we need to hear any more about MQA?  Who do these relentless mentions of MQA benefit?

Exactly the point, the gratuitous MQA mentions are non-stop in the trade press for years now, and this is just another example. JA2 probably thought this was a very clever way of doing it, but it's really just more of the same routine.

 

51 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I meant the relentless mentions in the trade publications that are often indistinguishable from pure marketing copy.

That it is, though I've also at times wondered (most recently with MF's Clique! debacle on Tracking Angle) if the whole thing has by now graduated to simple click bait, the trade press desperate for whatever page views they can get, and so anything controversial or bound to generate comments and or rebuttals is a good thing in their book, and worthy of further baiting. In that sense MQA is the gift that keeps on giving for the trade press, long after it's supposed efficacy had been exposed like the Wizard of Oz.

[MikeyFresh]

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

It really has nothing to do with explaining/promoting MQA. As far as I can tell it’s intended as a humor piece.

While certainly having a tongue in cheek look to it, it is definitely still more of the same with regard to gratuitous mention of MQA, JA2 just packaged it a little differently, no doubt patting himself on the back a few times in recognition of just how clever he thinks that repackage is.

[MikeyFresh]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You sure that's the right number for stereo?

 

 

It would be 2x those numbers for 2 channels, however I also fully agree with this aspect:

 

36 minutes ago, Jud said:

On second thought, don't bother. If at some point there's a working codec popular enough to be included with music I may listen to and products I may choose to purchase, then let me know what the actual tested capabilities are. Until then, I don't think this merits my further attention.

 

[MikeyFresh]

39 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

Let's play a fun game and guess how many MQA mentions and praises are in this fool's "review"...

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-apex-da-processor

I think the last time we played this game my guess was a half dozen, I was only off by one, shy of course in that there were in fact 7 total gratuitous MQA mentions.

 

So I'll up my bid and say 7 this time.

[MikeyFresh]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

I think more importantly after all this time, it would be nice to see a formal retraction from the mainstream audiophile "press"; something from the "journalists" out there who might have come to their senses by now? I think that would be helpful for the audiophile hobby, and a sign of integrity.

 

LONG overdue, and easy enough to have done at various junctures, but somehow that never happened despite the face saving opportunity it would have provided.  I fear that ARQ's recent investigation/comparison of the Clique! album in various formats on this very forum and his personal conclusions there might be about as close as we'll ever come to something like a formal retraction.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a candid follow-up piece on MQA by the likes of Paul Miller and Hi-Fi News, and how that might rattle the cage a bit at sister publication Stereophile.

[MikeyFresh]

41 minutes ago, jriver said:

I thought it died two or three years ago.

It mostly did, though you'd never know that from the unrelenting glowing mentions in the trade press both then and now. Toss in various mainstream equipment manufacturers looking to tick another feature set box, and it's still unfortunately on life support.

 

43 minutes ago, jriver said:

Nice of you all to keep the memory alive.

Actually it's been TIDAL keeping that memory alive, though judging by their declining subscriber/market share numbers, very few people actually care. I wonder if Warner Music is still paying much attention?

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, ECL said:

My comments about experts and expertise pertains to the fact that none of the discussions I ever see on the topic, whether pro- or anti-, have their head anywhere in clean air but mostly in a dark musty place where the sun doesn't shine, rank with propaganda, fearmongering, misinfo, on both sides. Where are calm people weighing the good and the bad with an even analysis? Few and far away, just like the ones who know what they're talking about.

 

Then clearly you've not read any meaningful portion of this admittedly large thread, nor followed along MQA's sordid saga since inception. There are numerous detailed technical analysis available here and elsewhere that both fully debunk MQA's marketing BS, and do so in a way that has never been rebutted or addressed in any way by anyone with credible evidence to the contrary.

 

All of the above analysis was presented in a perfectly calm and clean way, despite trolls like you who think the same old tired lousy game plan of shoot the messenger and make false claims about lack of decorum on the internet is effective in countering MQA's detractors. It is not effective at all, and once again stands out starkly here as another attempt to deflect and change the narrative. That very weak playbook has been revisited time and time again, this time by you.

 

Your accusations of dark musty places and propaganda/fear mongering/misinformation etc are unfounded, and of anything better describe the reactions of the MQA cadre at RMAF a few years ago than anything you'd see here.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

7 hours ago, ECL said:

I see MQA as a good ALMOST-lossless codec for delivering HiFi audio over transport channels of limited bandwidth and/or where bandwidth usage incurs greater costs. Think here, bluetoothy-ish, mobile data while traveling, or traveling in places where you pay $20 but they cap you at such-and-so-many gigabytes until you have to pay more.

But why would that be useful to someone wishing to stream lossless tracks at home over their LAN or WLAN?

 

Why would I want to pay extra for an MQA enabled DAC, and an additional premium for TIDAL "Masters" or "HiFi" or whatever the heck they are now choosing to call it when I can just have actual lossless files for less with Qobuz or Deezer?

 

7 hours ago, ECL said:

Remember, the way to knowledge is research, inquiry, and deep reflexion, not judgment or parroting the first partisan who happened to skew your judgments!

 

I'll say it again, these are completely false accusations you make with a very broad stroke, and they confirm you've read no appreciable portion of this thread at all.

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

2. > 99% of what's lost is what's claimed as inaudible, such that it's ALMOST fair to call it lossless.

 

Either it's lossless or it's not, and MQA originally called it lossless even using a logo that said lossless when it was not. Then they said in interviews and in copy on their website that MQA was better than lossless! What a crock, how can anyone have any respect or trust anything they say at all? Why would you or anyone wish to support that nonsense in any way?

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

2) isn't some counterfeit unapproved kooky crap that who knows which platforms you can't trust, would serve that stuff up.

 

Veiled accusation there, which platforms are you referring to? Apple Music, Amazon Music, Qobuz, Deezer, which one(s)?

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

If one can't think of how that's potentially useful, one has one's panties way too tightly wadded.

 

I can't think of how that is useful, not in the context of all we know for some time now, and I don't wear panties, though it sounds like you might have real first hand knowledge/experience in having your panties in a bunch.

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

This has created a partisan atmosphere where it seems that nearly 100% of people who are politically anti-MQA think it also sounds worse, and nearly 100% of people who are politically pro-MQA also think it sounds better.

 

Wrong, many of us don't care at all what MQA sounds like, and are opposed on various other clearly stated levels. Further, the McGill study and others conclude that there's nothing to see there. Another old MQA talking point dredged up and made new again, the old "but doesn't it sound great" argument as of that's all anyone should be considering.

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

Whereas we all know that if this were a cleanly conducted discussion, those two things should be independent variables.

 

It is a cleanly conducted discussion, and they are independent, as stated above many of us don't care at all about what MQA supposedly sounds like, and are opposed for various other very good reasons. Further, lossless on Qobuz sounds great, so I'm all set there, as are many others with lossless on Deezer, Amazon, or Apple Music... sounds great, streams glitch-free, and involves no middleware fees. 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, ECL said:

someone who evades all the scientific discussion and just parrots misinformation

You've just described yourself quite well haven't you? Where have you addressed any of the very well made points in the various posts above at all? You haven't, at all.

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

there is no way I can fight the flood of spurious misinformation above.

Thats because there is no spurious misinformation above to fight, if there were you'd have made specific reference to it and provided some sort of substantive reply.

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

Third, I am not pro-MQA.

Then why are you here making claims of spurious misinformation and the like?

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

but certainly educated enough to peer review that all the critiques so far against MQA have failed to pass even the basics of scientific methodology, and are total amateur hour not even worthy of MS level let alone Ph.D. or post-graduate level.

Pure BS, and too easy for you to make this claim with absolutely nothing to back any of it up. If the critiques were so flawed then why has there never been anything remotely approaching a credible response or rebuttal to them? Wouldn't it have been wise and appropriate for Bob Stuart or the trade press to have presented a real response to the various well prepared critiques backed by real repeatable measurements by now? Did you note how Bob Stuart took 6 weeks to muster up the one pathetic/useless response to the GoldenSound video that he even made?

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

To anyone over IQ 108, this should be clear enough to differentiate me from some paid bot who comes in just to troll and market MQA.

Wow so I'm guessing in your case we're dealing with some serious higher intelligence then? Do you want a medal, or a chest to pin it on?

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

one can call me an hero of honesty and understatement to call it ALMOST LOSSY

Actually you had called it almost lossless, and MQA called it lossless, then changed that to better than lossless, when in fact it's lossy.

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

"LOSING NOTHING IN EXCHANGE FOR GAINING EXTRA FIDELITY."

Simply false, and thats been demonstrated more than once, as well as backed up by controlled listening tests such as the McGill study.

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

Sixth, the claim that we are at a place where bandwidth doesn't matter couldn't be further from the truth.

Depends on the person and how/where they listen. I don't really listen much on a mobile data connection where it might matter, but I do listen a lot at home on my LAN, and there it does not matter to me nor likely anyone with a decent broadband connection.

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

people who weigh a list of PROS vs CONS

We've done that here, and you'd know that by now had you actually read any appreciable portion of this admittedly long thread.

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

wildly exaggerative mismarketing and not delivering truthfully on its claims.

Is entirely unnecessary when a product or technology can stand on its own and clearly provide value and efficacy, right?

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

making sure a bunch of nazis don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Ridiculous assertion, so now the real problem here is nazi related?

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

WHERE ARE ALL THE OPEN-SOURCERS trying to make an OPEN STANDARD to do what MQA is trying to do?

You'll have a hard time finding very many people working hard on solutions to problems that don't actually exist.

 

1 hour ago, ECL said:

Will the mismarketing and exposure of false claims permanently damage

Bob Stuart's reputation and that of the trade press too? Yes thats already happened, and one day his money losing venture currently about £40 million under water and counting will vanish when the investors decide to stop throwing good money after bad.