MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

23 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

That's the big difference that allows the MQA time smearing correction to be easily heard. 

Bullshit, and yet another call to authority using the Alcons Audio good name to somehow equate that systems' performance (in 2014) with that of MQA's supposed ability to eliminate time smear.

[MikeyFresh]

39 minutes ago, Currawong said:

The MQA short filters, and ones like it (iFi) bring all the instruments forward, even ones that should be behind the speakers.

Likely all that @Fx Studio is describing as revelatory in listening to this on a PA.

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, Archimago said:

You also did not answer the question about what you think "deblurring" does or what magnitude you expect it to perform at.

He's done that repeatedly through his posting history here at AS, any questions directed to him in replies are ignored as if they don't exist, a definite pattern has developed there.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Fx Studio said:

FLAC can't deliver that 3D "the artist is in the room" sound that MQA does.

Total BS, you are a troll.

[MikeyFresh]

7 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

Yep, total display of zero CRITICAL THINKING skills in here.

 

Nope, it's a total display of moronic trolling by you.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Fx Studio said:

 

So actually you have no real evidence except Golden Sounds highly flawed test.

 

 

 

You've just proven that you haven't ever read any appreciable portion of this thread, nor actually researched anything at all, here or otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

So, you come on here spouting nonsense and it up to folks here to debunk you? Ignore you is more appropriate. 

 

Exactly, complete nonsense earns a spot the ignored member list.

[MikeyFresh]

26 minutes ago, Spike Kasperak said:

Unless I missed, it seems MyTek has dumped MQA. Does not seem to be Trojan Horsed on to this product:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-digital-brooklyn-bridge-ii-roon-core-preamplifier

 

No apologies to customers, no mention of how MQA is no longer available. How humiliating. I would never spend a Euro with this company.

 

Interesting in that there appears to be some conscious distancing there, however once digging down a bit on the Mytek product listing, it does appear:

SPECS

Brooklyn Bridge 2 is all in-one Roon Core Streamer + excellent DSD/MQA DAC+ Analog (w/Phono) and Digital Preamp and a high-end headphone amplifier in a compact, modern beautiful chassis.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

If the VST plugin was such a big thing, why wouldn't MQA have a product page about it? Why keep it secret?

Exactly, and that question was posed to Fx immediately on his arriving here, but unsurprisingly he wasn't ever able to answer it.

 

With MQA's finances going steadily down the tubes over the last 18-24 months, culminating in their late 2022 financial statement filing indicating significant new investment would be needed or cash would run out after 1Q23, the last thing in the world they would do is keep such a secret when so desperately in need of good news/spin.

 

The fact it was briefly mentioned in their FAQ and then withdrawn a long time ago means it never happened.

[MikeyFresh]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

I think in a year or two there will be none. When Tidal ends up with little or no MQA no one will care (except for PV and FX) and it won't matter to any manufacturer, or even any consumer, as there essentially will be no source.

Why pay fees and be subject to NDA's and interference in product design for a dead tech...to a bankrupt company?

 

What a shame!

 

What will become of all that fantastic new EDM produced with the mythical MQA VST plugin then? It's gonna be so blurry and smeared that no one will be able to enjoy it, not even on PA ribbons, complete with a light show.

[MikeyFresh]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

I also think that as a hi-fi company, they won't be able to convince their competitors to work with them and give them proprietary info about their products. 

I even assume some companies will now take MQA OUT of their products for just this reason.

 

That's a good point and originally I was thinking about that the other way around, i.e. would Lenbrook wish to continue licensing MQA to other CE manufacturers who are effectively their competitors? Upon further refection it's probably a bigger concern for those current CE manufacturer MQA license holders that they are now going to be handing their product details to a direct competitor. I suspect many will not want to do that unless Lenbrook relaxes that requirement. 

[MikeyFresh]

26 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

FLAC never sounds like the vocalist is in the room singing - the vocals are flat 2D like.

 

While with MQA the sound is everywhere like 3D - so yes, it does sound like the vocalist is live in the room.

 

IF you have a sound system that can deliver that.

 

 

 

Wait I thought it was only audible with recent 2021-23 MQA VST plugin-produced EDM, and only with PA ribbons and a light show?

 

Now there are vocalists live in the room as if it were the original acoustic space? COOL - on what album titles can we hear that on and when can we watch it in a YT video with a light show?

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, Fx Studio said:

"We are excited to have the opportunity to clarify the narrative and build on the technology in ways that can better demonstrate [MQA's] true value"

 

So far they've clarified nothing, and spewed the very same time smear correction BS and advanced sampling theory based on neuroscience garbage as usual, just like you do.

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Does this sound system contain copious amounts of mind altering drugs? Wondering for a friend.

 

Actually now that you mention it, Fx forgot to stipulate that smoking ayahuasca to the point of hallucination is another prerequisite, along with the PA ribbons and light show.

[MikeyFresh]

33 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

From what I and others are hearing your test is likely flawed and making assumptions - the old "it can't be this because of that", argument is very weak.

 

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

 

@The Computer Audiophile aren't all of Fx's non-substantive replies in which he's carefully steered around any questions posed to him an example of outright trolling and nothing more?

 

@firedog and others have pointed out that Fx doesn't even seem to know what constitutes a real test (or not a real test), and his recent non-response to @Jud is yet another example of zero substance and all troll. That kind of sheer idiocy is what often provokes a less than polite response, and yet there has been nothing but tolerance and patience with him here, counter to the fake news lack of civility charge often bandied about by the trade press and other MQA-supporters when describing this forum.

 

I see why you've given Fx a long leash here, because he's more than hung himself and continues to put his foot in his mouth with every post (I won't call them responses because they aren't). Strange that those so uninformed don't keep their mouth shut for fear of exposing themselves as know-nothings.

[MikeyFresh]

52 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

From what I and others are hearing your test is likely flawed and making assumptions - the old "it can't be this because of that", argument is very weak.

 

What about your non-test involving only your ears and some bullshit EDM supposedly produced recently with the unicorn MQA VST plugin? That non-test/light show was pathetic and laughable, yes we all laughed at you, very hard.

 

54 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

Not bizarre at all and not a claim, it's been previously documented and repeated. Jud's post contained very specific and verifiable information, unlike your ridiculous drivel.

 

59 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

 

Since you don't know what a proper test is you aren't qualified to comment on it nor demand one, much less any documentation. Hint: it's already been documented here, and elsewhere, a fact you'll surely disregard in your next troll post.

[MikeyFresh]

12 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

The response when expecting wild claims made here might actually have some substance to back them up...

 

Care to try again with that nonsense reply, or are you a chat bot?

[MikeyFresh]

11 hours ago, Fx Studio said:

I think I should know what a proper "analyzer test" should look like. 

 

PA ribbons and a light show then?

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Fx Studio said:

a professionally written test report

 

Have you provided any professionally written test reports that back your fantastic claims of MQA's time smear correction capability (hint: thats a yes/no question)?

If yes, exactly whose tests were you reporting on?

 

Related to the above, how many professionally written test reports have MQA ever provided that back up or illustrate their various marketing claims, including the above mentioned correction of so-called time smear?

 

Besides MQA themselves, how many professionally written test reports backing the claim of time smear correction have been produced by 3rd parties? Cite examples please.

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

Its not me who is disputing the manufacturers claims - YOU are.

 

There claims cross-match mine and many others experiences.

 

MQA has clearly spent millions on R&D, and no doubt has all the equipment and experienced engineers required to test there own products, as well as to support implementation by third party manufacturers.

 

Therefore, as the accusers its up to you to back those claims up - which collectively you seemed to have failed to do.

 

 

 

Translation: the answer to that first yes/no question I asked is a "no", you've not produced any professionally written test reports despite the expectation and demand for such in your previous post in which you listed out 6 different necessary pieces of information when no one owes you anything.

 

In my second question I asked how many professionally written test reports (the kind you are demanding) had MQA ever published backing their claims of time smear correction, but since you don't know the answer to that question you've instead replied with conjecture about R&D budgets and what that might mean in terms of equipment and MQA engineers testing their own product. Your pathetic reply there skirts the obvious question of why that testing has not been presented in the professionally written test reports you've demanded, and made available for 3rd party and peer review scrutiny. Surely if time smear correction were a real thing, MQA would show the testing that proves it and probably license it to various 3rd parties including the ADC makers, right?

 

34 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

Therefore, as the accusers its up to you to back those claims up - which collectively you seemed to have failed to do.

 

I'll relieve you from having to answer my 3rd question since you failed to answer the first two, I'm going to presume based on your track record here that it would have been 3 for 3 with pathetic non-answers, and I'll not feed your trolling here again at all. You've been exposed as a know nothing fool that is here only to troll us and nothing else.

 

Again, we all laughed pretty hard at your PA ribbon EDM light show "test" captured to YT video, really quite amusing, and told us pretty much all we needed to know right then.

[MikeyFresh]

49 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Can this be accomplished by batch processing? Because that's something else I seem to remember from these pages upon pages of information, that MQA doesn't give the vast majority of recordings individual attention. (Makes sense, since it would be rather expensive if it did.)

 

Not only expensive but it would take a very long amount of time, the Warner Music catalog that was encoded in MQA appeared too quickly for anything but batch processing on all but a fraction of those releases.

[MikeyFresh]

On October 23rd the insolvency practitioner handling the wind down of the company formally known as MQA Ltd. changed their name to Wave Realisations Limited, as a condition of the sale of all IP and the trade name MQA itself to Lenbrook.

On November 2nd the administrator filed a report with the High Court detailing the progress made in the period April 3rd through October 2nd, including an estimated outcome for creditors.

In that report it was revealed that the whole of the transaction included the sum paid in full by Lenbrook of just £100,000 with £30,000 of that total set aside to satisfy an existing patent claim, ensuring that good title could be passed along to the purchaser. 

The company will move to dissolution after a distribution has been made to preferred creditors, and unsecured creditors will receive no consideration.

Tens of millions of pounds were invested in MQA, but the IP's sold value broke down as follows:
 

 

[MikeyFresh]

New DAC models are starting to appear sans MQA badging, including the Topping D90 Mk. III. Safe to say that Topping et al have no intention of sending a competitor like Lenbrook any licensing revenue?

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Doubt it has much to do with Lenbrook. More likely they just see that MQA is dead, and no reason to pay the licenseing fee and up the price of the product for something useless. 

And Topping priviously sold 2 versions of the same DAC - one with and one without MQA - the non MQA one was about $100 cheaper. 

Maybe it sold better, and that told them something?

 

While I'm sure that companies like Topping started making their plans to drop MQA as soon as they went into administration (or even earlier), certainly the clincher in deciding what to do is influenced in some way by the fact that MQA is now owned by a competitor consumer electronics manufacturer. Sending a competitor money, or even worse sharing your hardware design details with them (as MQA had previously mandated) is going to be a non-starter, to the extent that I bet we'll shortly only see Lenbrook products with MQA onboard and not much of anything else.

 

I would think the previous version without MQA at $100 less would definitely have sold better, but it's hard to say when you consider all of the rampant cheerleading that MQA got from the trade press, and even the owner of the science-ish site, that probably unduly influenced some buying decisions.

[MikeyFresh]

18 hours ago, bogi said:

 

Are you sure that even that is going to happen?

 

EDIT:

Information from Lebbrook IMO indicates their interest about MQA know how but not about current form of MQA as a product: https://lenbrook.com/lenbrook-extends-leadership-in-hi-res-audio-with-mqa-acquisition/

 

 

Definitely not sure of that at all, I'm guessing the wireless headphone collaboration with Sonical will see the light of day in early 2024, and I'd seen rumors that another PSB branded 2.1 wireless speaker system was already planned or in development, so that too might come to be, but both might end up being some sort of SCL6 implementation which does not by default require MQA encoded source material.

 

If so, then it would appear the sun has certainly set on MQA unless a new streaming partner can be found, or their deal with TIDAL can be resuscitated (seems unlikely).

 

19 hours ago, bogi said:

Topping mentions ES9039SPRO in D90 III product specs and their picture shows it

 

I noticed that and yet absolutely no mention of MQA in the marketing blurb, so either they are intentionally dodging the subject now, or perhaps they have used a chipset version that would allow for a firmware update to enable MQA in the future should that ever become a need.

 

One thing is for sure, no big fat MQA logo right on the front panel as with the previous D90SE.

[MikeyFresh]

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Mike Jbara’s “excellent people skills”

 

Evidently so skilled that the company he headed lost tens of millions of pounds on absolutely pathetic turnover, year after year.

 

9 hours ago, Jud said:

Notice also he’s still putting out the “empower creators” BS. (MQA tried to say it would help pay artists more in some way.)

 

I couldn't help but notice that PR fluff for just what it is, total BS.

 

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Also fitting that he says it's about "advancing choice" when the publically stated goal of MQA was to remove all choice and have people use a single MQA deliverable.

 

Exactly, just as with the above nonsense about "empowering creators", this too is the exact opposite of what they are claiming, and the MQA folks were actually on record confirming such, and TIDAL/Warner Music actually went ahead and implemented that.

 

9 hours ago, botrytis said:

I would laugh but the amount of futz, in this marketing blurb, tell me everything I need to know, more of the same from m-qanon.

 

Laughable in many ways, but also deplorable that the Lenbrook Group people seem to have no reservations about continuing the BS stream as if nothing ever happened. Unsurprising I guess given their original press release at the time of the acquisition was also brimming with crap. Perhaps they know they've still got the trade press firmly in their back pocket, and another deluge of BS is ready to rip shortly.

 

I also find it noteworthy that MQA's new owner seems to have set up Lenbrook Media Group as a separate entity within their group of companies, but with BlueOS supposedly out in front in flying that new flag.

 

I'd love to think their CES meeting schedule is thus far rather void of parties interested in licensing and integration "opportunities". I'd also like to think that the previous partnership with TIDAL is effectively over, irreversibly so, however TIDAL's own precarious financial position probably means they would have to listen if a Warner Music Group or affiliated party were to throw some money at them in an attempt to jump start this scheme all over again.

 

One thing is certain, the old version of this scheme wasn't making any money (quite the opposite), and never gained significant market traction beyond the tiny niche/small group of audio trade press groupies that were willing to pay extra for TIDAL. Any 2.0 version of this nonsense will have to be very different, lest it quickly fail, though Lenbrook doesn't exactly have a ton of capital committed at the moment either.