MQA is Vaporware

[MetalNuts]

It is a nightmare for all those who prefer to have their music in the digital format if MQA works like Cinavia in the video discs.  

[Shadders]

Hi,

 

My interpretation is that MQA Ltd and the record labels are solely in it for the money, absolutely no altruism.

 

1. MQA could be applied to the source recording, with the temporal smear correction applied at this stage, such that every one could benefit, and no special hardware required. This is not the case, and the MQA model is to insert themselves into every part of the audio chain, right up to the end user (customer), extracting royalties from everyone.

 

2. Does the MQA model ensure that the loudness wars are corrected for every recording that is encoded in MQA ?. I have seen no such report. So, MQA is not interested in sound quality for the end user.

 

3. Same for the record labels – no loudness wars removal.

 

4. Record labels are here to make money, I see no indication that they have any other reason other than to make money, in providing MQA.

 

5. From what I have read on this site, Ayre products implement their own filters, and this is a key aspect of their products – filters that are a benefit to the listener – please correct me if I am wrong. MQA removes this strategy completely – as MQA forces the end user (DAC) to implement only their one of 32 filters. MQA has full control of the audio chain, telling people what filters they must use. Hence, in this regard (and others), Charles is correct to argue against MQA.

 

It may be that if MQA becomes prevalent, then Ayre may implement MQA, as in the end, without offering the capability may cause the business to fail.

 

As such, I support the criticism of MQA, since MQA removes the diversity of equipment capability, in that MQA forces people to use 32 specific filters. (please correct me if I am wrong).

 

There are of course many other aspects not stated in the above.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Hifi Bob]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

MQA could be applied to the source recording, with the temporal smear correction applied at this stage.

Mastering engineers already have the choice of pretty much any filter they want—i.e. if there is any audible ‘temporal smear’, the M.E. can and will fix it using standard tools (iZotope etc.).

[Shadders]

36 minutes ago, Hifi Bob said:

Mastering engineers already have the choice of pretty much any filter they want—i.e. if there is any audible ‘temporal smear’, the M.E. can and will fix it using standard tools (iZotope etc.).

Hi Bob,

Thanks. So in essence, MQA is not required (has been stated many times on here and elsewhere).

Maybe someone could offer an app that provides an approximation to the MQA filters (32 of them) so we can pick and choose which one we like - on a phone or other ??

Regards,

Shadders.

[lmitche]

Looking at this thread reminds me of the:

 

Mind the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, articulated by the Italian software developer Alberto Brandolini in 2013:

 

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."

 

If the inverse is true, then MQA must certainly be Bullshit.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ha!

 

Post of the Month goes to Larry!

[maxijazz]

On 9/20/2017 at 8:30 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

LG has put many badges on their phones over years. And other manufacturers, too. And next year have replaced them with different badges. 

 

It matters who has put a badge.

For MQA it would need to be a company that matters in music industry or/and has monumental marketing power. Like Apple. Even they failed promoting new "products" many times. Because, in addition to strong marketing push (finding out about something new), customers must perceive/experience a benefit off of the new "product". 

[lucretius]

On 9/20/2017 at 5:47 PM, Charles Hansen said:

It's all part of our sick (as in unhealthy, diseased, unsustainable) culture that precisely mirrors the world of Orwell's novel "1984".

 

And so says someone brought up on this book.  I really think we need some new books in the curriculum.

[christopher3393]

3 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

 I really think we need some new books in the curriculum.

 

May I suggest a short essay for present purposes?  https://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

 

...and a slight emendation to the thread title: "MQA is Vaporous"

[Rt66indierock]

On 9/20/2017 at 11:34 AM, Indydan said:

 

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. 

 

Why are you shocked LG hasn't made good decisions in its mobile division historically why should they start now? And consumers who are buying it aren't buying the phone for the audio. The average consumer is pretty smart about their phones in the sense the don't buy LG.

[fung0]

4 hours ago, lucretius said:

And so says someone brought up on this book.  I really think we need some new books in the curriculum.

 

Orwell did his best to warn us, but couldn't anticipate everything. He nailed the roles of propaganda, surveillance and thought control... but under-rated the role of economics, especially corporate greed and the concentration of wealth.

 

This may explain why, 'post-1984,' so many people continue to believe that corporate entities are essentially benign. That a company like MQA simply couldn't be as utterly amoral as its own statements clearly indicate. That the anointed heads of gargantuan global music-distribution cartels must still be focused on the stated goal of fostering creativity and getting music efficiently out to the masses - and not simply working to maximize their own multi-million-dollar annual bonuses by any means necessary.

 

Getting down to cases: it is preposterous to suggest that the financial history of the companies Meridian and MQA is somehow irrelevant to the current debate. The business press routinely prints such analyses, without apology, as a basis for guiding the (stock) purchases of its readership. The audio press surely owes its readers the same service.

 

To be sure, the background may not matter so much if I'm buying a single new DAC. But if I'm being asked to buy into - or tacitly agree to - a far-reaching new technological standard, I'd definitely like to know everything I can about the people and companies proposing it. Their past actions and current financial structures are vital in assessing their goals and their prospects. (All other considerations aside, I wouldn't willingly agree to a new standard that depends on a company that isn't financially stable. I've already got too many files in my archives that I can no longer access.)

 

Orwell was wrong: the darkest future isn't one in which Big Brother controls everything. It's a world in which the population believes unquestioningly in the God-given right of Big Brother Inc. to own everything, in perpetuity. Not just the products of creative labor, but even the underlying mathematics that allow creations to be stored or transmitted. A world in which questioning that corporate status quo has become a thought-crime.

[rando]

 

This meme has spent two weeks in my post editor.  Where it gets opened up after reading the last reply in this thread at least once a day.  Not once has it failed to elicit peals of laughter.  The time to spend it has come and I will miss it sorely.  

[mcgillroy]

1 hour ago, fung0 said:

 

Getting down to cases: it is preposterous to suggest that the financial history of the companies Meridian and MQA is somehow irrelevant to the current debate. The business press routinely prints such analyses, without apology, as a basis for guiding the (stock) purchases of its readership. The audio press surely owes its readers the same service.

 

To be sure, the background may not matter so much if I'm buying a single new DAC. But if I'm being asked to buy into - or tacitly agree to - a far-reaching new technological standard, I'd definitely like to know everything I can about the people and companies proposing it. Their past actions and current financial structures are vital in assessing their goals and their prospects. (All other considerations aside, I wouldn't willingly agree to a new standard that depends on a company that isn't financially stable. I've already got too many files in my archives that I can no longer access.)

 

+1!

 

While I don't appreciate with the tone of Charles statements in this context I agree that they are valuable. The more information available the better the market can adjust.

 

 

[realhifi]

8 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

And so says someone brought up on this book.  I really think we need some new books in the curriculum.

Amen. 

[skikirkwood]

I have to say, this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on any audio forum.  Lavorgna threatens to cancel the accounts of dissenting opinions on Audiostream, but just gets destroyed here.  Charles Hansen calling out Bob Stuart as dishonest, and a quorum of folks calling MQA for what it is - a financial grab using a lossy, DRM scheme.  Wow.

 

And now, 83 people have just done a blind testing of MQA for me and the results are what I expected: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

 

Glad I bought a Schiit DAC with no wasted expense on MQA.

[Shadders]

Ha ha, 50:50 chance you will like it.

Here's my mate, marmite.

[skikirkwood]

This thread is so impressive that it is even referenced in the Wikipedia definition of MQA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

[crenca]

I think it was this thread where we discussed Berkeley Audio's reasons for supporting MQA.  Below is a link direct from them.  The thing is, I don't even buy the technical story as he paints it - it (once again) just appears to be MQA marketing speak and besides some ideal world that does not exist, could not be more irrelevant (would be interested in C Hanson's take on his assertions):

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-politics-of-mqa/#comment-3530562059

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, skikirkwood said:

I have to say, this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on any audio forum.  Lavorgna threatens to cancel the accounts of dissenting opinions on Audiostream, but just gets destroyed here.  Charles Hansen calling out Bob Stuart as dishonest, and a quorum of folks calling MQA for what it is - a financial grab using a lossy, DRM scheme.  Wow.

 

And now, 83 people have just done a blind testing of MQA for me and the results are what I expected: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

 

Glad I bought a Schiit DAC with no wasted expense on MQA.

 

I suppose a die hard MQA supporter could suggest that the mqa filters aren't as bad as everyone says they are with results like that :~)

 

I would love to see him do some similar test of 320 AAC vs Redbook vs high resolution, just to see the results. 

[skikirkwood]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I suppose a die hard MQA supporter could suggest that the mqa filters aren't as bad as everyone says they are with results like that :~)

 

I would love to see him do some similar test of 320 AAC vs Redbook vs high resolution, just to see the results. 

Archimago did (MP3, not AAC) back in 2013: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html

 

Makes me not feel guilty about preferring Spotify over Tidal.

[The Computer Audiophile]

32 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

Archimago did (MP3, not AAC) back in 2013: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html

 

Makes me not feel guilty about preferring Spotify over Tidal.

 

Interesting.

 

I wouldn't feel guilty about preferring anything :~)

[skikirkwood]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Interesting.

 

I wouldn't feel guilty about preferring anything :~)

In every listening test I have done I couldn't hear a difference, other than the occasional dropout by Tidal.  But where I do believe there is a huge difference with these services is the ability for the two sites to help with music discoverability.  

 

Spotify has put a major R&D effort into developing proprietary machine learning algorithms that are behind their "Discover Weekly" and "Daily Mix" personalized playlists.  And they work incredibly well for me.

 

I was an early user of Pandora and loved its personalized station concept, but found that over time it had too much repetition with tracks I was already familiar with.  Not the case with Spotify.

[realhifi]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Interesting.

 

I wouldn't feel guilty about preferring anything :~)

Exactly. That SHOULD be the overriding vibe. To each his own and all that.....

[realhifi]

1 hour ago, skikirkwood said:

In every listening test I have done I couldn't hear a difference, other than the occasional dropout by Tidal.  But where I do believe there is a huge difference with these services is the ability for the two sites to help with music discoverability.  

 

Spotify has put a major R&D effort into developing proprietary machine learning algorithms that are behind their "Discover Weekly" and "Daily Mix" personalized playlists.  And they work incredibly well for me.

 

I was an early user of Pandora and loved its personalized station concept, but found that over time it had too much repetition with tracks I was already familiar with.  Not the case with Spotify.

 

No dropouts for me with Tidal but it’s integration with Roon is why it won the day for me. It’s unfortunate it costs more than Spotify but hey, $10 a month more; i can swing it. 

 

PS. I too dug Pandora (and wife still uses it) but the repetition got old. They may have improved that.  It also is the one place you can hear ECM tracks. 

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I suppose a die hard MQA supporter could suggest that the mqa filters aren't as bad as everyone says they are with results like that :~)

 

Hi,

Or, high resolution is not all that better than red book, and neither is MQA.

As with cables, people are told they are better, so people being told MQA is better, is all the encouragement they need to hear the better sound.

Regards,

Shadders.