MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

23 minutes ago, kana813 said:

The Politics of MQA:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-politics-of-mqa/

 

Boy oh boy.  I would say that these guys are in a hole and they just keep digging but this guy has it right in that for "The Absolute Sound" MQA is now POLITICAL with a captial "P".  They simply don't care about the real cons of MQA - they simply just want to win.  They are REALLY upset that they have not been able to control the narrative.

 

This has got to be the most ridiculous sentence I have read in this entire two year MQA promotion effort (co-lead by TAS) I have yet read:

 

" But to suggest that Bob Stuart’s diligent efforts to assure that his invention is heard and understood represent some sort of hucksterism is simply bizarre."

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, kana813 said:

The Politics of MQA:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-politics-of-mqa/

Thanks for the link.

[miguelito]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for the link.

 

I find the article a bit dismissive of some legitimate criticism. My main issue is the relentless pursuit of licensing fees from every single possible point, which ends up delaying MQA takeup.

 

However, I fully agree with this:

"My assessment is that MQA is definitely different, and usually better. Not night and day better, but better. Think about it. This is music arriving in your room via the Internet, for a fairly minimal monthly charge—an exponentially increasing body of recordings for playback with sound quality that’s, at the very least, as good as the best present  high-resolution digital files."

[Bob Stern]

Reader comments below the TAS article include complaints about DRM and a link to this thread!  I'm pleased that TAS has not censored those comments (so far).

[rickca]

The following quote from the article is particularly hypocritical and ironic.

Let’s face it: There are some audiophile elitists that are going to resent this challenge to their special status.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, miguelito said:

 

I find the article a bit dismissive of some legitimate criticism....

 

I think the reason is what has been discussed here before.  TAS, Stereophile, etc. are not "journalistic" publications at all but rather trade/promotion vehicles.  Andrew Quint, RH, JA, etc. etc. are out of their depth when it comes the technical, legal, DRM, digital ecosystem and even consumer aspects of MQA.  Thinking about and understanding these sorts of things is not what they do.  Mr. Quint reveals his fundamental limitations with this sentence:

 

"Typically, these articles have little to say about how MQA actually sounds"

 

It is not just that he is in error when he says this (the critics of MQA in no way ignore the SQ aspect) but rather it is the only way he can write about MQA because he is a "sounds like" trade publication writer.  Not only that, he admits he is part of the promotion of products and in this case MQA:

 

"...DVD-Audio failed and SACD has barely survived as a niche product, due, at least in part, to deficiencies in the way these formats were promoted when they were new..."

 

This is his wheel house and where he is comfortable.  The rest is, well, taken personally because he is simply ignorant.  How does he argue for the alleged technical aspects of MQA?  He simply cites Bob S. authority!! :

 

".. a team headed by Bob Stuart, an acknowledged authority on digital methodology..."

 

If he was actually willing to defend the expert, then he would actually cite a range of experts who were able and willing to study MQA.

 

In the end MQA has exposed the anti-consumer soft underbelly of these publications and writers like perhaps nothing else could.  I don't attribute ill will to them - they simply $live$ in a world that is so industry centric they are truly befuddled by a consumerist take on what MQA really is.

[Nikhil]

There are two aspects of MQA - how it works and how it sounds.

 

The discussions here on CA have given insights on how MQA works pretty extensively.  However for quite a few the technical discussions are too complicated and they just tend to go with how MQA sounds. Personally I have found MQA's filter recipe creates a sound signature that is easy on the ears.  I can see and understand why some would like it.  However the leap that this is now "better" is where I disagree.    

 

MQA is just a glorified filter setup that should be done in software.  The nonsense that is MQA - the elaborate hardware qualification process for manufacturers, the "mastering", the DRM aspect and the specious claims of "Master Quality Authentication" is absolute hogwash.  It is pretty disturbing to see how much the music and audio industries are getting behind MQA just to make a fast buck.   

 

 

[Charente]

I'm late to this party ... but presumably if and when this does take a foothold in the market, there is nothing to stop licence fees, and therefore music, streaming cost and equipment, to rise significantly in the future at the whim of the licence holder ... As a consumer, once you're in, you're in ... lock stock and barrel !

[Charles Hansen]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

However, I fully agree with this:

"My assessment is that MQA is definitely different, and usually better. Not night and day better, but better. Think about it. This is music arriving in your room via the Internet, for a fairly minimal monthly charge—an exponentially increasing body of recordings for playback with sound quality that’s, at the very least, as good as the best present  high-resolution digital files."

 

Hello Miguelito,

 

I can't disagree with anyone's opinion of the sound quality of MQA - "better" is in the ear of the listener. However I would prefer to purchase a DAC with better sounding digital filters than to buy a new DAC plus pay a monthly rental fee so that only a small percentage of the music from one source (and nothing that I actually own) sounds "better".

 

As far as $240 per year being called "fairly minimal" is again a matter of opinion. One could purchase 10 or 20 high-res downloads, or 60 used CDs, or some combination of the two for the same amount and own them forever. Five CDs a month is a lot of new music to assimilate. Even 1 or 2 high-res downloads will keep many busy. One can listen to all the new music one wants at Spotify to figure out what is worth buying.

 

Finally, there is a factual error in the quote. Please look up the meaning of "exponential". It means that the number of releases each month is increasing every month. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a dump by Warner's of around 2500 albums  starting in late January and ending mid-March. Then pretty much nothing until a recent dump of another 1000 albums from Universal. Still nothing from Sony. This hardly qualifies as "exponential"growth.

 

Instead it is the exact same thing that we saw with Pono - some third party comes along and offers free beer to the record labels. They try it out. If it makes them money, they move forward - as rapidly as possible. If it doesn't make them money, they back off - as rapidly as possible.

 

When DVD was released to the video world, nearly every single release made money for both the movie studios and the content producers.. They liked making money so within 6 months there were 10,000 titles and within a couple of years there were 50,000 titles. In contrast, with both DVD-Audio and SACD, each release made no money for the labels whatsoever (despite Sony Electronics - not Sony Music - subsidizing the production and manufacturing of SACDs). Both formats died almost instantly. It's just that it took the end user another two or three years to realize how bad the dead bodies smelled - like a small child begging a dead pet to come back to life.

 

Currently we are at the point where MQA is already dead. It will just take another year or two for the consumers (being bamboozled by cheerleaders like TAS) to realize that fact. The reality is that Tidal has added essentially no new subscribers by adding MQA. It definitely costs more to provide MQA to their customers - the file size (and therefore both storage and streaming costs) are double that of CD, plus there is the cost of having to start with ia high-res master file (several thousands of dollars) plus the MQA processing (another several thousands of dollars).

 

Somebody has been paying for this, and it hasn't created any ROI to date. Nothing appears on the horizon to change this equation, so it is clear that MQA is already dead. We will just have to wait for people to notice the stench of the dead bodies. I hope it isn't another two or three years as it was for SACD and DVD-Audio.

 

Best regards,

Charles Hansen

[FredericV]

3 hours ago, miguelito said:

"My assessment is that MQA is definitely different, and usually better. Not night and day better, but better. Think about it. This is music arriving in your room via the Internet, for a fairly minimal monthly charge—an exponentially increasing body of recordings for playback with sound quality that’s, at the very least, as good as the best present  high-resolution digital files."

 

When no more technical arguments are left, the MQA key opnion makers always fallback to one of these 2 options:

- you must go listen
- or post their standard time domain argument, with some copy paste journalism

So what did we do? We bought an MQA DAC, put it in a nearfield setup with Amphion Two 18, a big Vitus amp, and listened to DXD vs MQA files from 2L.no

I was first tempted by more echo & reverb in the MQA files, but something was missing in voices. It also sounded thinner. These are subtle not day and night differences, but the fact that the DXD sounds different from the MQA version, de-authenticated the A in MQA. Only one can be the studiomaster quality.

Studio's like 2L.no have worked years ago on their DXD masters. These were already available in 2013 when we entered the music server world. Those DXD files are 2L.no's reference of the studio sound.

2 years later MQA enters the market.

Now the MQA version with de-blur via their weird filters is supposed to be the new definition of master quality, while it's actually a  post-processed version of the original master, de-authenticating the originality.

Since day 1 I find the A in MQA misleading and false advertising.
The A should be Augmented or Approximated, otherwise it's misleading.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

Currently we are at the point where MQA is already dead.

 

[Charles Hansen]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

 

Hello Mansr,

 

LOL! That is perfect! Exactly describes the state of MQA. The only problem is that we don't have the representative from Ministry of Funny Sketches to put a halt to the charade.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansesn

[kana813]

I guess someone forgot to tell these folks that MQA is already dead.

 

From www.audiostream.com:

HDtracks, the grandfather of hi-res download sites, will be launching their own streaming service, HDmusicStream, which will feature all MQA-encoded music all the time, later this year. HDtracks have chosen 7digital to provide app development, host the music catalogue on its platform, and deliver tracks to consumers. Here's Pete Downton, Deputy CEO of 7digital (as reported in StockMarketWire.com):

"We are excited today to be able to confirm our relationship with HDtracks. The Grammy Award-winning label Chesky Records—from HDtracks founders David and Norman Chesky—has, for many years, set the highest standards in high resolution audio. Their pursuit of excellence will soon be available to audiophile music fans in a streaming service for the first time".

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, kana813 said:

I guess someone forgot to tell these folks that MQA is already dead.

 

From www.audiostream.com:

HDtracks, the grandfather of hi-res download sites, will be launching their own streaming service, HDmusicStream, which will feature all MQA-encoded music all the time, later this year. HDtracks have chosen 7digital to provide app development, host the music catalogue on its platform, and deliver tracks to consumers. Here's Pete Downton, Deputy CEO of 7digital (as reported in StockMarketWire.com):

"We are excited today to be able to confirm our relationship with HDtracks. The Grammy Award-winning label Chesky Records—from HDtracks founders David and Norman Chesky—has, for many years, set the highest standards in high resolution audio. Their pursuit of excellence will soon be available to audiophile music fans in a streaming service for the first time".

 

It is officially late based on what Bob Stuart told me personally at the Los Angles Audio Show.

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, kana813 said:

I guess someone forgot to tell these folks that MQA is already dead.

 

From www.audiostream.com:

 

Hi Kana,

 

Yes, and apparently it was MQA. The announcement is from Jun 5, and in it Michael Lavorgna asked some questions:

 

"Of course this raises many questions including (but not limited to):

1. How much
2. How many
3. When
4. Is this the end of the world

AudioStream will be providing answers to these questions, and more, as soon as we get 'em."

 

Three months later and (as usual) More Questions than Answers (MQA), as not one has been answered. Perhaps MQA is like the parakeet and just "resting".

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[kana813]

Mr. Hansen ,

 

I checked with HDTracks today, and was told HDmusicStream will be up and running by the end of the year.

 

Aloha.

[rickca]

2 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

Currently we are at the point where MQA is already dead.

So, Charles I sure hope I never see an announcement that Ayre is providing MQA support on its DACs.  

[Don Hills]

44 minutes ago, kana813 said:

I checked with HDTracks today, and was told HDmusicStream will be up and running by the end of the year.

Did they say which year?

[The Computer Audiophile]

28 minutes ago, rickca said:

So, Charles I sure hope I never see an announcement that Ayre is providing MQA support on its DACs.  

I never thought I'd see DSD on Ayre DACs after reading his rants about it, but $omething changed his mind :~)

[rickca]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I never thought I'd see DSD on Ayre DACs after reading his rants about it, but $omething changed his mind :~)

Deleted.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Charles Hansen said:

snip............
 

Three months later and (as usual) More Questions than Answers (MQA), as not one has been answered. Perhaps MQA is like the parakeet and just "resting".

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

I only wish it were so.  It could be just stunned.

[wdw]

2 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

More Questions than Answers (MQA)

funny!  it appears the MQA folks are now just ignoring you/us as they are now at third base.  The strategy is so suspect...no reviews nor direct A/B comparisons for the unwashed but extravagant treatment for the audio glitterati.  I have respect for the opinions of JA, of Stereophile, and these on MQA are overwhelmingly positive...perhaps when we have a chance to hear this stuff in a controlled environment we may share his outlook but the marketing strategies of MQA have thwarted my attempts.

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, wdw said:

funny!  it appears the MQA folks are now just ignoring you/us as they are now at third base.  The strategy is so suspect...no reviews nor direct A/B comparisons for the unwashed but extravagant treatment for the audio glitterati.  I have respect for the opinions of JA, of Stereophile, and these are overwhelmingly positive...perhaps when we have a chance to hear this stuff in a controlled environment we may share his outlook but MQA has thwarted my attempts.

 

How does MQA Ltd get to third base without revenue? Even LG selling a million phones and other hardware manufactures selling 100,000 DACs this year isn't enough. 

[wdw]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

How does MQA Ltd get to third base without revenue? Even LG selling a million phones and other hardware manufactures selling 100,000 DACs this year isn't enough. 

 

Aren't they now embedded with two or three major labels, Tidal, HDTracks and a few others?

[Rt66indierock]

17 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

Aren't they now embedded with two or three major labels, Tidal, HDTracks and a few others?

 

Again where is the revenue stream going to MQA Ltd? At some point you have to stop burning cash. In 2016 MQA Ltd's cash burn rate was about $360,000 a month. That can't go on forever.