MQA is Vaporware

[Charles Hansen]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

How else would you do it? Using pen and paper?

 

Hi Mansr,

 

No, I actually prefer an abacus.

 

If you'll stop being snide, I will be happy to discuss the various ways that digital files can be manipulated, and what I see as the advantages and disadvantages of each. Strictly my opinion of course - this is why there is not just one "perfect" DAC that satisfies all customers.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Nikhil]

47 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

 ...  I will be happy to discuss the various ways that digital files can be manipulated, and what I see as the advantages and disadvantages of each. Strictly my opinion of course - this is why there is not just one "perfect" DAC that satisfies all customers.

 

 

Very interested in hearing your take Charlie ...

 

 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

If you'll stop being snide

 

I’d like to read what you think about the subject before this happens.

[mav52]

13 hours 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 :~)

Yep, I remember those anti DSD rants.  Maybe missing out on some possible incoming revenue changes a position of a manufacturer. Now MQA is a whole different beast, send your equipment to MQA ,get "special sauce and be certified. But since 2014 this MQA stuff still carries own, and I'm not sure its dead yet.

[Charles Hansen]

9 minutes ago, mav52 said:

Yep, I remember those anti DSD rants.  Maybe missing out on some possible incoming revenue changes a position of a manufacturer. Now MQA is a whole different beast, send your equipment to MQA ,get "special sauce and be certified. But since 2014 this MQA stuff still carries own, and I'm not sure its dead yet.

Did you not read my reply to Chris's snide post?

Why is it that you think that all manufacturers are motivated solely by money?

(Except of course for purveyors of silly new formats, like DSD and MQA. They have no interest in money whatsoever. They are just kindly souls looking for some way to make the world a better place, but have run out of unicorns, butterflies, and fairies.)

If that were true, Ayre would be adding every new feature as soon as possible. The audiophile press has apparently convinced you that if it's newer, shinier, larger, and/or more expensive, it must be better.
And somehow everyone at Ayre is too stupid to figure anything out until one day some clever forum participant points out that we are losing out on bags of money. Then we all slap our foreheads, and say "Holy shit! We are missing out on bags of money! Quick, add the new feature right away before we lose any more bags of money!"
Maybe we should hire you as a consultant.

Oh wait. You will probably charge us bags of money.

Never mind.

[Charles Hansen]

2 hours ago, Nikhil said:

Very interested in hearing your take Charlie ...

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

I’d like to read what you think about the subject before this happens.

 

Hello,

 

Thanks for your interest. Basically there are two approaches. The first is to do it inside the box using hardware. The other is to send the signal through a general purpose PC that uses software.

 

As noted before by many people in many forums and by many manufacturers, a general purpose PC that is powerful enough to run a full blown application like HQPlayer is going to have advantages and disadvantages. As far as flexibility, it is unmatched. Any arbitrary digital filter can be easily run by the ridiculously powerful quad-core processors used in modern computers. It can also perform many other tasks simultaneously - check your e-mail, browse the internet, video conferencing, spreadsheets, word processing, 3D modeling, and much more. Then there will be often be a separate graphics processor that can run multiple displays at ultra-high resolutions, and subsystems to access the internet, your LAN, interact with your keyboard, mouse, monitor, and touchscreen. The power supplies are usually rated to supply hundreds of watts, the processor alone typically consumes 50 or more watts, there are dozens and dozens of asynchronous crystals inside, along with dozens of switch-mode power supplies. All of this means boatloads of RFI and EMI, both conducted and radiated. And we haven't even begun to talk about deliberate sources of RFI, like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (who wants cords on their mice and keyboards?)

 

So now you have added a huge source of noise to your nice audio system. Some of the noise is conducted through the AC power line, some of it radiated (especially with wireless connections) and some of it will be conducted by the cables between your computer and audio system. None of this is going to somehow improve the audio quality, of that we can be sure. The most we can do is to try to minimize the damage.

 

On top of this, unless the software is carefully written from the ground up to disguise your audio equipment as something entirely different (such as a hard drive), all of the audio data will be run through the audio subsystem of your OS. All OS's convert audio signals to 32-bit floating point, which has the same precision as 24 bits of fixed point audio. Unless something is wrong somewhere along the line, theoretically the audio data will be retained in bit=perfect format, with identical bit-for-bit audio data leaving and entering (if you have been very careful to make sure that your system doesn't deliberately try to alter the signal. Yet even in those cases, for some reasons not fully understood, even when using audio equipment with galvanic isolation and asynchronous clocks, all of the the things that shouldn't make any difference actually make a big difference in the real world.

 

One of the easiest places to hear this is to send your audio data to an Ethernet connection using Wi-Fi and then comparing using a wired connection to transmit the audio data. I have never failed to have people tell me that they are shocked at how much better the wired connection sounds. Which is starting to provide some clues...

 

In contrast, the digital filters and so forth can be implemented inside the box in one of two ways. One is to use a DSP chip, which is simply a microprocessor that has a special instruction set that is optimized to perform digital signal processing. Typically a DSP chip will have one single MAC (multiply and accumulate), which is the basic hardware used to create digital filters. Now, just having one MAC limits the speed at which one can process data, so DSP chips typically have internal clock multipliers that use an externally supplied clock and multiply it up to the highest rate the processor can run without overheating - usually between 500MHz and 1000MHz.

 

The other way to perform DSP operations is to use an FPGA. This operates completely differently than a microprocessor, which can literally only do one thing at a time (ignoring multi-core processors that require special programming to have more than one core operating on the same task together. About the only program I can think of that does this is dBpoweramp's file conversion program. Each core will convert two songs at once - multi-threading - and if there are, say, four cores, the program can convert 8 songs from one file format to another at the same time. But these multi-threaded, multi-core programs are quite rare, with most of the power being split between completely unrelated programs that are running simultaneously). The nice thing about an FPGA is that it can perform hundreds or even thousands of things simultaneously, which is very different from a DSP (specialized microprocessor).

 

In addition, it is quite common for modern FPGAs to have not just one MAC, but instead 8 or 16 MACs. This means the exact same filter can run at 1/8 or 1/16th the clock speed that a DSP chip requires. I like to (whenever possible) have every single device inside a box run off of just one clock - normally the audio master clock. Then there is no modulation or mixing of clock signals that can beat down into the audio band. There is just one single clock to worry about and it is fast enough to run an FPGA directly without requiring the use of a clock multiplier (although they are typically available if desired).

 

So given all of that, I think there is enough information to see that using an internal FPGA to do the DSP work of digital filtering has the potential to provide the highest level of performance of the three available choices. Obviously any approach can be executed either poorly or superbly. I'm sure that a superb implementation of a digital filter in an outboard PC will beat a poor implementation of an internal FPGA. But if all else is held equal, I know of nothing that can provide lower noise, lower emissions, lower levels of RFI, and completely avoid any conversion from fixed point (which is the way all music is stored and also the way that all converter chips operate) to floating point (which is just a convenience for an OS to be able to perform sample-rate conversions more easily and mix streams and adjust the levels of individual audio streams (eg, your music player and your mail program alert sound and all of the other miscellaneous beeps and boops that your computer likes to make.

 

So, no, no paper and pencil required, nor any abacuses. But also no need for an entire PC running a 64-bit OS on a 50 watt processor running a dozen different programs, running 184 processes, all generating noise that apparently sneaks into your audio system and degrades the sound. But that's just me. Most people do it differently, because it's easier or cheaper or that's all they know or that's the way it's always been done. I like to go to first principles and do things the best way possible from the ground up. It's not as easy, but as they say, if it were easy everyone would be doing it.

 

Hope that helps.

[Rt66indierock]

12 hours ago, rickca said:

The MQA thought police reputation management folks?

 

Hardly anything ominous as thought police or reputation management. Best I can tell the person is a shareholder – employee concerned about the future of MQA Ltd who shares a musical interest with me.

[crenca]

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's a very long winded, circuitous, self congratulating way to justify why you enabled a format you derided for many years. 

 

You run a business, not a charity. Same with me. I understand why some decisions are made, and I don't judge. I just hope, for your sake, you haven't made Ayre's possible future support of MQA so complicated that it will harm your business. 

 

 

If this morality tale ends as you say, then your reasoning makes no sense.  If a business is limited only by the $dollar$ and what the market demands and will bear, then how would it in any way be "complicated" for him?  Such a bottom_line_rules_all morality has not "complications" at all - it just checks the columns of the accounts.

 

However, you did not really mean to reduce the question to such an simplistic equation but even on the level of "optics" (for the consumer or on a business relationship level with MQA) I don't think your concern holds.  Again, if there is money to be made then saving face or emotional entanglements about the truth of MQA will be set aside for the greater good of...making money.

 

As to the truth of MQA and its claims (SQ, industry and consumer relevancy, etc.) none of this matters.  This is why we ("we" being the targets- the consumers of MQA) need more honesty from ALL sides of the industry including manufactures like Charles.  We don't need more anti-consumer advocacy of the alleged "non charity" and the morality of the almighty dollar such as what you propose here.  As near as I can tell, Charles is simply being honest and revealing truths about DSD and its place as a format and his business.  Such things are in reality quite "complicated" and there is no way around that as that is the way life is.  The consumer needs more of this honesty, not less...

[rando]

@Charles Hansen, while you are taking questions on center stage.  Would you be open to at least considering naming a, by no means assured, MQA DAC the 'Ayre Emon".  There is something gained through the injection of patois that is hard to put a finger on.  That goes counter to yet neatly aligns with all of the disparate signals we are getting.  

 

IF you rush to market you could be the first to breast the divide between MQA's target demographic younger audience and raking in bags of cash as a second or third order priority.  #AyreEmon, #Blessed, #hifi

[mav52]

1 hour ago, Charles Hansen said:

Did you not read my reply to Chris's snide post?

Why is it that you think that all manufacturers are motivated solely by money?

(Except of course for purveyors of silly new formats, like DSD and MQA. They have no interest in money whatsoever. They are just kindly souls looking for some way to make the world a better place, but have run out of unicorns, butterflies, and fairies.)

If that were true, Ayre would be adding every new feature as soon as possible. The audiophile press has apparently convinced you that if it's newer, shinier, larger, and/or more expensive, it must be better.
And somehow everyone at Ayre is too stupid to figure anything out until one day some clever forum participant points out that we are losing out on bags of money. Then we all slap our foreheads, and say "Holy shit! We are missing out on bags of money! Quick, add the new feature right away before we lose any more bags of money!"
Maybe we should hire you as a consultant.

Oh wait. You will probably charge us bags of money.

Never mind.

If that's the case Charles why did you implement DSD.  I guess the DACS sold with DSD was some freebie to the users. You made money off the upgrades and the new DACS. Don';t tell me its not about any money or doing something for the hell of it. ,.  You make money to pay expensive, stay in business.  I guess my Codex was a whoopie do moment, I bought it for its DSD and Ayre made money off the unit.  If its not about the money lower your prices, huh then slap your head.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Charles Hansen said:

All OS's convert audio signals to 32-bit floating point,

That is patently untrue.

 

1 hour ago, Charles Hansen said:

which has the same precision as 24 bits of fixed point audio.

And that isn't quite correct either.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

Did you not read my reply to Chris's snide post?

Why is it that you think that all manufacturers are motivated solely by money?

(Except of course for purveyors of silly new formats, like DSD and MQA. They have no interest in money whatsoever. They are just kindly souls looking for some way to make the world a better place, but have run out of unicorns, butterflies, and fairies.)

If that were true, Ayre would be adding every new feature as soon as possible. The audiophile press has apparently convinced you that if it's newer, shinier, larger, and/or more expensive, it must be better.
And somehow everyone at Ayre is too stupid to figure anything out until one day some clever forum participant points out that we are losing out on bags of money. Then we all slap our foreheads, and say "Holy shit! We are missing out on bags of money! Quick, add the new feature right away before we lose any more bags of money!"
Maybe we should hire you as a consultant.

Oh wait. You will probably charge us bags of money.

Never mind.

 

Nobody said anyone was motivated solely by money. Please don't push the conversation down path.

 

It's my belief that Ayre implemented DSD to please customers, check a box on the spec sheet, and make money. None of those are bad in and of themselves. There's no need to go into a long diatribe about DSD and its merits or demerits. 

 

My point was that you railed against DSD, and still do, yet you built the feature into your components when you didn't have to. You're supporting DSD by making playback available on your products. that seems very incongruent with your hatred of DSD. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

 

If this morality tale ends as you say, then your reasoning makes no sense.  If a business is limited only by the $dollar$ and what the market demands and will bear, then how would it in any way be "complicated" for him?  Such a bottom_line_rules_all morality has not "complications" at all - it just checks the columns of the accounts.

 

However, you did not really mean to reduce the question to such an simplistic equation but even on the level of "optics" (for the consumer or on a business relationship level with MQA) I don't think your concern holds.  Again, if there is money to be made then saving face or emotional entanglements about the truth of MQA will be set aside for the greater good of...making money.

 

As to the truth of MQA and its claims (SQ, industry and consumer relevancy, etc.) none of this matters.  This is why we ("we" being the targets- the consumers of MQA) need more honesty from ALL sides of the industry including manufactures like Charles.  We don't need more anti-consumer advocacy of the alleged "non charity" and the morality of the almighty dollar such as what you propose here.  As near as I can tell, Charles is simply being honest and revealing truths about DSD and its place as a format and his business.  Such things are in reality quite "complicated" and there is no way around that as that is the way life is.  The consumer needs more of this honesty, not less...

 

 

Hi crenca - Nobody here said money was a sole factor for anything. Please don't push the discussion down that hole. 

 

My suggestion is that it will now be very complicated for Ayre to implement MQA down the road should it chose to do so. If you take money out of the equation, the reasons for implementing MQA could be to please customers who want to listen to the format, check a box on the spec sheet (because everyone needs to keep the lights on and pay for employee health insurance etc...), make the best of a bad situation by trying to get the best quality from MQA files because without decoding/rendering the quality may be much worse, etc...

 

Given Ayre's public comments about MQA and a co-inventor's personal life, I can't imagine 1) MQA ever wanting to do business with Ayre (let's face it the volume isn't that large), and 2. People ever taking Ayre serious again, if it went back on its word and supported the format. Thus, if there is money to be made or emotions can be set aside, these two aforementioned points still may stop Ayre from moving forward. They can't control who MQA does business with and the hit to the company's reputation could be larger than the cost of not implementing MQA. 

 

Those two things make it very hard for Ayre to ever change positions. In the short term it's a good business move to come out against MQA because you're seen as the honest company who wants to stick it to the man and save consumers from the evil doers. In the long run, if MQA takes hold (this will be determined by the labels, not any hifi manufacturer), these companies are shooting themselves in the foot. In business, it's not a good thing to shut out future options, no matter how bleak they seem at the moment. As many in this thread say, options are a good thing. 

 

I'm all for honesty and encourage it here on CA. In fact, I sent Charles a PM a few weeks ago thanking him for some information he provided in a different thread and saying I was appreciative of him taking time to educate people on some topics. However, we must all consider the reasons for such perceived honesty, whether it's related to MQA or otherwise. What's in it for Ayre to make public statements about MQA? There are altruistic reasons and there are monetary business reasons. We can't include the former and automatically exclude the latter just because it fits our narratives. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

Why do uncompressed files (eg, WAV and AIFF) sound any different from losslessly compressed files (eg, FLAC and ALAC)?

 

@mansr You forgot to address this one too :~)

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@mansr You forgot to address this one too :~)

There's no point arguing with flat earthers.

[miguelito]

13 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

So why not just stream a 96/16 FLAC version? It would sound better than the MQA, be absolutely free, and require both less storage space and less streaming bandwidth.

 

Because there would be no "MQA Blue Light" authenticating provenance, there would be hardly any compelling reason to switch to MQA, there would be a very weak if any motivation for people to repurchase their content (this is the only reason studios would jump on this).

 

So in other words, it is more about making money for MQA Co and the studios more than anything else.

 

I will state, however, that I am not necessarily against this if it proves that at the end of the day we get better sounding music over streaming.

[crenca]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

My suggestion is that it will now be very complicated for Ayre to implement MQA down the road should it chose to do so...

 

Given Ayre's public comments about MQA and a co-inventor's personal life, I can't imagine 1) MQA ever wanting to do business with Ayre...

 

...People ever taking Ayre serious again, if it went back on its word and supported the format....

 

...In the short term it's a good business move to come out against MQA because you're seen as the honest company who wants to stick it to the man and save consumers from the evil doers. In the long run, if MQA takes hold (this will be determined by the labels, not any hifi manufacturer), these companies are shooting themselves in the foot...

 

Chris, I suggest that you are trying to have it both ways here and you end up in a contradiction.  On the one hand, you are suggesting that in the end it all comes down to money/business and thus the truth of what Charles is saying is at best indeterminate and is in fact just yet another $dollar$ play, an attempt to position himself and his business in the mind (you used the word "perception") of the consumer and that the real truth of MQA as a technical format is besides the point.  IF this were the case, then Bob S and MQA certainly play by the same rules do the not?  IF this is true, then why would they allow a few comments about Bob S himself to interfere with a chance to make more money and not do business with them - after all all is fare in war and business is it not?  In the end, the game is simply that (a game) and the point is not to "win" but to make money.  

 

On the other hand you also maintain that it is not about money/business in the end, it is really about ego and that MQA/Bob S will in the end $sacrifice$ some amount of money to make a point and uphold some morality of personal decency or some such thing, and that the "word" of Ayre counts for something and they could not simply say "look, MQA has become the standard format.  We don't agree with it/like it, but we have to go with what our customers and the market demand".  Why could they not say/do this?

 

 

Quote

... What's in it for Ayre to make public statements about MQA? There are altruistic reasons and there are monetary business reasons. We can't include the former and automatically exclude the latter just because it fits our narratives. 

 

 

 

That's just it - I don't see why manufacturers or "the industry" have to in any way go along with this narrative of "see not evil, speak no evil" that you assert is in their best interest.  Even if the reality of the business conditions and the industry/market is as you say (which I assert is a simplification, and thus in error), I don't see any reason why anyone would want to play by your rules.  Fortune rewards the bold and those who bend the rules.

 

However, all this is quite besides the point because reality is such that it is far more complicated.  From a consumer standpoint (which is the only one I and just about every other poster here cares about) we benefit from this complication and even depend on it.  If it really is as you say and the motivations and morality (personal and business) of all the players in the industry is hegemonous as you believe, then it is ALL voodoo and there is no reason for us to listen to any perspective.  Thankfully, that is not the case.  There is real truth in what these various manufactures, recording engineers, DAC designers are saying about the downside of MQA and sure their motivations are as varied and complicated (and thus not "altruistic") as life itself but that is a good thing.  It is good because that is the real check against the very hegenomy and monopoly you assert is control of whether MQA becomes an or the standard.  

 

Think of it this way:  What is happening is a war of "narrative" and we as consumers want this war to continue in all it's complicated mess.  Your pushing in the wrong direction, towards a particular narrative which allows the story of MQA to determine the battlefield if not the exact outcome...

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

Chris, I suggest that you are trying to have it both ways here and you end up in a contradiction.  On the one hand, you are suggesting that in the end it all comes down to money/business and thus the truth of what Charles is saying is at best indeterminate and is in fact just yet another $dollar$ play, an attempt to position himself and his business in the mind (you used the word "perception") of the consumer and that the real truth of MQA as a technical format is besides the point.  IF this were the case, then Bob S and MQA certainly play by the same rules do the not?  IF this is true, then why would they allow a few comments about Bob S himself to interfere with a chance to make more money and not do business with them - after all all far in war and business is it not?  In the end, the game is simply that (a game) and the point is not to "win" but to make money.  

 

I said, just the opposite. It doesn't all come down to money and money isn't the single factor driving anything. 

 

Think about how much money Ayre could possibly bring to MQA ltd. We're talking peanuts compared to the LG v30 phone and other manufacturers. Ayre is inconsequential to the MQA business plan. I don't know that to be 100% true, it's just my guess. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

In the other hand you also maintain that it is not about money/business in the end, it is really about ego and that MQA/Bob S will in the end $sacrifice$ some amount of money to make a point and uphold some morality of personal decency or some such thing, and that the "word" of Ayre counts for something and they could not simply say "look, MQA has become the standard format.  We don't agree with it/like it, but we have to go with what our customers and the market demand".  Why could they not say/do this?

 

Money is one ingredient of the soup, as is ego, and altruism. It's a not a puzzle with hard edges or a single factor above all. 

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

That's just it - I don't see why manufacturers or "the industry" have to in any way go along with this narrative of "see not evil, speak no evil" that you assert is in their best interest.  Even if the reality of the business conditions and the industry/market is as you say (which I assert is a simplification, and thus in error), I don't see any reason why anyone would want to play by your rules.  Fortune rewards the bold and those who bend the rules.

 

Nobody has to go along with any narrative. I'm not sure what I said that suggests I know what is in Ayre's best interest. I just said things will be difficult in the future for Ayre. For all I know the company could plan to sell to Samsung tomorrow. I'd never pretend to know what's in its best interest. 

 

I've never written any rules. People can't play by my nonexistent rules. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

However, all this is quite besides the point because reality is such that it is far more complicated.  From a consumer standpoint (which is the only one I and just about every other poster here cares about) we benefit from this complication and even depend on it.  If it really is as you say and the motivations and morality (personal and business) of all the players in the industry is hegemonous as you believe, then it is ALL voodoo and there is no reason for us to listen to any perspective.  Thankfully, that is not the case.  There is real truth in what these various manufactures, recording engineers, DAC designers are saying about the downside of MQA and sure their motivations are as varied and complicated (and thus not "altruistic") as life itself but that is a good thing.  It is good because that is the real check against the very hegenomy and monopoly you assert is control of whether MQA becomes an or the standard.  

 

I don't understand what you're saying. Perhaps there is a less convoluted way to say it. You seem to be putting words in my mouth, but even then I'm not sure what words.

 

Debating pros and cons is good. You lost me on anything else you said that I said.

 

 

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

Think of it this way:  What is happening is a war of "narrative" and we as consumers want this war to continue in all it's complicated mess.  Your pushing in the wrong direction, towards a particular narrative which allows the story of MQA to determine the battlefield if not the exact outcome...

 

This isn't a war. In war people die, come home with missing limbs, and mental injuries that last a lifetime.

 

I'm not pushing in any direction. Please stop suggesting I'm pushing anything. If I say something that questions anything (other than MQA sucks) you seem to think I am pushing an agenda. Why would I push an agenda that would upset half of CA's readers? Dumb business move. 

 

It's well established that you hate MQA. I have no issue with that. I like some things about MQA and hate other things about MQA. However, I try my hardest to not let any of this prevent me from seeing all sides to this issue. It really seems like you can't see any side that doesn't want to burn Bob Stuart in effigy. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Nobody said anyone was motivated solely by money. Please don't push the conversation down path.

 

It's my belief that Ayre implemented DSD to please customers, check a box on the spec sheet, and make money. None of those are bad in and of themselves. There's no need to go into a long diatribe about DSD and its merits or demerits. 

 

My point was that you railed against DSD, and still do, yet you built the feature into your components when you didn't have to. You're supporting DSD by making playback available on your products. that seems very incongruent with your hatred of DSD. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi crenca - Nobody here said money was a sole factor for anything. Please don't push the discussion down that hole. 

 

My suggestion is that it will now be very complicated for Ayre to implement MQA down the road should it chose to do so. If you take money out of the equation, the reasons for implementing MQA could be to please customers who want to listen to the format, check a box on the spec sheet (because everyone needs to keep the lights on and pay for employee health insurance etc...), make the best of a bad situation by trying to get the best quality from MQA files because without decoding/rendering the quality may be much worse, etc...

 

Given Ayre's public comments about MQA and a co-inventor's personal life, I can't imagine 1) MQA ever wanting to do business with Ayre (let's face it the volume isn't that large), and 2. People ever taking Ayre serious again, if it went back on its word and supported the format. Thus, if there is money to be made or emotions can be set aside, these two aforementioned points still may stop Ayre from moving forward. They can't control who MQA does business with and the hit to the company's reputation could be larger than the cost of not implementing MQA. 

 

Those two things make it very hard for Ayre to ever change positions. In the short term it's a good business move to come out against MQA because you're seen as the honest company who wants to stick it to the man and save consumers from the evil doers. In the long run, if MQA takes hold (this will be determined by the labels, not any hifi manufacturer), these companies are shooting themselves in the foot. In business, it's not a good thing to shut out future options, no matter how bleak they seem at the moment. As many in this thread say, options are a good thing. 

 

I'm all for honesty and encourage it here on CA. In fact, I sent Charles a PM a few weeks ago thanking him for some information he provided in a different thread and saying I was appreciative of him taking time to educate people on some topics. However, we must all consider the reasons for such perceived honesty, whether it's related to MQA or otherwise. What's in it for Ayre to make public statements about MQA? There are altruistic reasons and there are monetary business reasons. We can't include the former and automatically exclude the latter just because it fits our narratives. 

 

 

Your reasoning is very sound Chris. But, although other companies have not been as (negatively) vocal as Mr. Hansen about MQA, they have stated they will not support the format (Schiit comes to mind). I also read from a Naim employee on their forum, that the Meridian people came to Naim to make a pitch for MQA. Naim politely declined. Of course, if MQA does catch on, manufacturers might have to swallow their pride and implement it in their gear. 

 

I think though, that we are a long way from seeing MQA being a viable thriving format, if ever. 

[Indydan]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I said, just the opposite. It doesn't all come down to money and money isn't the single factor driving anything. 

 

Think about how much money Ayre could possibly bring to MQA ltd. We're talking peanuts compared to the LG v30 phone and other manufacturers. Ayre is inconsequential to the MQA business plan. I don't know that to be 100% true, it's just my guess. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that is the challenge MQA faces. Ayre, or any other specialist manufacturer of audio gear on their own, sells too few units to make MQA viable. But, MQA needs as many as these relatively small specialist manufacturers it can get.

 

I don't believe MQA will be implemented in consumer level electronics like Sony, LG or Samsung, that sell many thousands of units. People who buy phones and 100$ Blu Ray players don't care about that stuff. There is no point for Samsung to pay royalties to MQA, for a feature their costumers don't know or care about.

 

The companies likely to adopt MQA are the specialist audio companies, that sell much lower volume. It sounds to me, like MQA needs Ayre, PS Audio, Schiit, Naim, Rega, etc, much more than those companies need MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Indydan said:

Of course, if MQA does catch on, manufacturers might have to swallow their pride and implement it in their gear.

 

Certainly. Many have said they don't like MQA and that's a respectable position. But, most have left the door open and have refused to go after Bob Stuart personally. I don't really care which route manufacturers take (personal attack on Bob, expressing dislike for MQA, or enthusiasm for MQA). I just wanted to make the point that things will be hard for Ayre in the future, should it want to implement MQA. That's all. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Indydan said:

I don't believe MQA will be implemented in consumer level electronics like Sony, LG or Samsung, that sell many thousands of units.

 

LG just put it in a phone. I'm willing to bet the large manufacturers will do MQA, in part because it's a badge on the front of the receiver and a check mark on the spec sheet. Those companies are 100% about bottom line. If MQA sells units, they'll do it.. If not having MQA hinders sales, they'll have it in a heartbeat. 

 

As you know, I don't have a crystal ball. This is all my speculation based on research and conversations. 

[Indydan]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Certainly. Many have said they don't like MQA and that's a respectable position. But, most have left the door open and have refused to go after Bob Stuart personally. I don't really care which route manufacturers take (personal attack on Bob, expressing dislike for MQA, or enthusiasm for MQA). I just wanted to make the point that things will be hard for Ayre in the future, should it want to implement MQA. That's all. 

 

 

 

LG just put it in a phone. I'm willing to bet the large manufacturers will do MQA, in part because it's a badge on the front of the receiver and a check mark on the spec sheet. Those companies are 100% about bottom line. If MQA sells units, they'll do it.. If not having MQA hinders sales, they'll have it in a heartbeat. 

 

As you know, I don't have a crystal ball. This is all my speculation based on research and conversations. 

 

I am a little shocked by LG putting it in a phone! The average non audiophile who listens to music on a phone, has no idea what PCM, DSD or MQA is! It is probably a case of people buying a product based on marketing and buzzwords. The more logos on the box, the better it is, even if they don't know what the logos mean...

 

It is discouraging that people (sheeple) are so malliable. 

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

...I just said things will be difficult in the future for Ayre...

 

...I'm not pushing in any direction. Please stop suggesting I'm pushing anything....

 

 

 

 

Well, your original statement to Charles was not as "neutral" - at least it did not come across that way.  Besides why would you have such a "hope" if your concern does not rest on a certain narrative of the market, namely that MQA is the future and anyone inside the industry who dares questions it risks being frozen out for whatever reason (personal, business, etc.)?  The way I see it, Charles IS acting in his best interest (from a purely business point of view) but of course any action contains risks of the known and unknown kind.  Your perspective on all this business appears to discount the risk of both non-action (i.e. going along with the MQA narrative) and what happens to all DAC manufactures when their products become mere hardware placeholders for IP protected magic box that is MQA.  

 

In any case, I hope it gets very very complicated and "difficult" for Charles and everyone else.  MQA is hoping we all see this as easy and beneficial (beneficial to BOTH "the industry" and the consumer) and simply lay down for the narrative that they wrote and so much of the industry (particular the trade publications) mindlessly regurgitate.  They are also hoping that the anxiety of being left out will freeze manufactures into not moving towards their own interests or that of their customers.  They might actually pull this bold move off and be handsomely rewarded for it, though I don't think so.

 

In other words, I hope more and more manufactures start making you nervous

[rickca]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If MQA sells units, they'll do it.

Just wait till MQA signs a promotional sponsorship with some recording artist with huge exposure ... maybe one of the TIDAL investors or a judge on The Voice ... and every consumer audio product will want MQA.  This can't happen until there's a critical mass of music available in MQA.

 

Cell phones are the best target for MQA because consumers are accustomed to upgrading them every year or two.  Cell phone manufacturers are always on the lookout for the next big thing for their flagship model.

 

MQA is too hard to sell to audiophiles.  Just call it high res or whatever buzzword you like and tell teenagers you aren't cool unless you have it.  I think Jay-Z is smart enough to take a piece of the action.

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

...personal attack on Bob...

 

IF Bob has lied, and that lie is objectively verifiable, how is it "personal"?  In what sense are you using "personal attack"?  Are you saying that those who objectively lie should not be called a liar because it is not nice or some such thing, or do you mean something else?  I ask in all sincerity - not sure what your point is here...

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

IF Bob has lied, and that lie is objectively verifiable, how is it "personal"?  In what sense are you using "personal attack"?  Are you saying that those who objectively lie should not be called a liar because it is not nice or some such thing, or do you mean something else?  I ask in all sincerity - not sure what your point is here...

Hi,

I agree - facts are facts, and if anyone has purposefully misrepresented the truth, then it is acceptable to call it a lie.

As such, if the person has lied, then they are a liar. (and they haven't mis-spoke....)

Regards,

Shadders.