MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, shtf said:

Whatever happened to Sterophile’s Jim Austin?  It’s like he appeared briefly 6 weeks ago to sway or conquer, failed , then disappeared just as quickly. 

 

That about sums it up.

 

4 minutes ago, shtf said:

But I’ve no doubt they’re all reading every post in this thread just waiting for the next opportune time to strike.  And of course then disappear again. 

 

That would assume there are such opportunities. I can only infer they saw what previously had looked like opportunities all but dry up, and thus they've vanished.

 

6 minutes ago, shtf said:

Can anybody think of any other product or technology introduced to high-end audio where the magazines developed what seems almost like a swat team tag team mentality?

 

I cannot, no.

[MikeyFresh]

5 hours ago, realhifi said:

By the way, who is Exogal?  Just hadn’t heard of them. 

 

I believe the principals are all former Wadia executives.

[MikeyFresh]

58 minutes ago, shtf said:

Think what the industry insiders tried to sell us 3.5 years ago about MQA’s performance e.g. hearing for the first time EXACTLY what the engineers heard in the recording studio, grown men weeping, jaws dropping, experiencing the birth of new worlds, scientific revolutions, ad nauseum.  None of which have come true for anybody else.

 

Then there’s their absurd antics to try to mitigate their damages these past 3.5 years.  Think also of the potential millions if not billions of dollars ultimately involved if the entire music industry adopted the monopolizing MQA format.

 

Their integrity, motives, listening skills, technical prowess, product reviews and ratings, reputations, care and concern for the industry, etc, in other words, everything about these two magazines and their editors and their purpose for existing have been brought into serious question as a result of their early MQA endorsements and their ongoing defense.

 

Oh yes a major embarrassment. If they don't feel humiliated, they should, and you've not overstated it in any way that I can see, rather spot-on actually.

 

[MikeyFresh]

5 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

192kHz/24bit DSD master

 

Huh? Thats not actually a thing.

[MikeyFresh]

On 7/30/2018 at 5:13 PM, Rt66indierock said:

I’ll know the book value when they post the financial statements in September. 

 

Hopefully it's akin to a house of cards with a lit match in dangerously close proximity.

[MikeyFresh]

12 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Yep people talk and I just sat there talking notes.

 

[MikeyFresh]

14 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

So I guess CA has reached a point in the MQA debate where a dissenting opinion is labelled propaganda.

 

Says the astroturfer whose propaganda poorly masquerades as opinion.

[MikeyFresh]

Sony launches hi-res streaming service in Japan

Lossless 24/96 tracks in collaboration with Rhapsody's Napster platform, at about £14 per month.

 

Absolutely no mention of any MQA bullshit, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps, but it is the first time it has happened to me with C.A. , and it didn't go away immediately.

 

Norton has been known over the years to generate a false positive from time to time, I wouldn't worry too much about It unless you were visiting a site with questionable pedigree.

[MikeyFresh]

32 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Is losing a form of redbook an issue?

 

No, losing Rebook is an issue. It's not a form of Redbook, it's Redbook.

 

On a related note, most of us don't consider MQA a form of Redbook, it does not adhere to the Redbook spec/standard, it's lossy.

 

I see that in composing this note that @The Computer Audiophile has already said the same thing as I am. Lee chose not to respond to his initial query and instead answered a question with a question.

 

Lee, the question is if losing Redbook is an issue, and that answer is an emphatic YES.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

54 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

As for better, the temporal improvements cover that.

 

More fake news Lee, you seem to be the only one who conveniently forgets this was long ago debunked.

[MikeyFresh]

38 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Please do!

 

+1

[MikeyFresh]

53 minutes ago, firedog said:

After extensive listening, I’m “meh” about the sound - I mostly don’t hear any advantage to it so I don’t see the point. Add in the proprietary aspects and the clear goal to control what file formats we have access to, and that pushes me to the “anti” side.

I’m fine if you or anyone else enjoys the sound of it - that’s personal taste. What bugs me though, are some consumers and many professionals - some of them at your magazine - who write about it as if it is clearly a major audio advance and has no possible downsides for consumers. Some of the people at your magazine are also ignorant about it’s technical aspects, and repeatedly regurgitate false marketing speak put out by MQA themselves that obfuscate what it is and how it does it.

 

That uninformed and fanboy approach is part of the reason for the “hate” you refer to. Many of us feel the audiophile press is trying to foist an unneeded format upon us through false or at least dubious claims. 

 

The above is sensible, and mirrors my own personal feelings and stance on MQA. Funny how the MQA cadre won't actually respond directly to any of the above in a substantive manner, ever.

 

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Andrew - Your comments are much more about shooting the messenger @crenca than telling anyone about the benefits of MQA. If he focussed on things other than how "music actually sounds" that doesn't matter to me in the least. Many others here focus on how it sounds. Combine the two and we have a pretty broad view of MQA. 

 

Your last paragraph is quite Presidential. You are turning things 180 degrees the wrong way. The only reason people around here bring up all the negative aspects of MQA is because, to use your words, "this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance." MQA for may people is the antithesis of perfectionist audio. This is evidenced by so many overwhelming points. We went from your magazine pushing straight wire with gain to audio origami. You guys have a lot to lose, so it doesn't surprise me that there's no mea culpa but rather a doubling down on the original message like we see in politics today. You guys have been duped. It happens to everyone and it isn't a crime. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

 

I was thinking the other day about what Mike Jbara said during my RMAF presentation when he claimed that MQA was going to help artists get paid and that it was needed or people would turn to other careers. Think about that. Who is MQA really for? It's for the record labels. In addition, telling consumers that artists will be better compensated because of MQA is such a joke. Sure, public companies are going to take any "extra" profits and give them to artists when they have never done that in their history. Plus, I'm not sure many consumers want to fill in the monetary gap created by record labels. In other words, record labels pay artists next to nothing, so consumers should make up for that by buying into a proprietary format rather than just have labels pay artists what they should. Again, MQA isn't for consumers. Please try to get ahold of the materials MQA uses to sell its products to the labels. Anti consumer doesn't even begin to touch on it. 

 

Your last statement about "...who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community" is also turning things 180 degrees. I'm sure you realize that HiFi has been dying for decades. Stratospheric prices, many more competing interests for peoples' time and money, and a touch of snake oil all contribute. So, when a newcomer is fed pages of BS about MQA being the second coming of digital, then purchases an MQA DAC to hear this second coming. What do you think happens when it sounds worse or he can't tell the difference? That's a much bigger turn off and much larger factor in turning people away from this hobby. 

 

Read all the mainstream tech press. What do they say about lossless audio? That only audiophiles can tell the difference if listening on a good system.Talk about high resolution and those publications with tens of millions of readers per month start to chuckle. Now add in MQA and it's a soup sandwich. We have a large tech audience here on AS from Silicon Valley and elsewhere. When they read both sides of MQA they find it refreshing. They don't need to be protected by anyone saying, stop the negative MQA bashing because it will turn people away. Real information keeps people coming back. Sure, giving people a dream and increasing their hopes of a second coming of digital also draws people in but in the long run it turns people away more than anything. 

 

I find that people like to read all sides of the story. This includes those at the far ends of the continuum because it helps put the whole story together. 

 

Very well said Chris.

 

Shall we take bets on whether or not AR responds in any kind of substantive way?

[MikeyFresh]

41 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Isn't it conceivable that the guy just likes the way MQA sounds?

 

I guess so, but isn't it also conceivable that he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is nothing more than a shill? We've seen no evidence to the contrary.

 

41 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Crenca, I sense hates the magazines on general principles—

 

Perhaps, but what about me then? I've subscribed to TAS and Stereophile magazines for decades now. I live in NY, but I buy the U.K. pubs on the news stand at $11 a pop... HiFi+, HiFi Choice, HiFi World, HiFi News & Record Report. I'm not a hater of the magazines, though I have seen the content quality diminish greatly over the years.

 

41 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

some agitprop blog.

 

I'm pretty sure we have no idea which blog you are even referring to based on that characterization. Doesn't begin to ring a bell.

[MikeyFresh]

25 minutes ago, crenca said:

For example, it is true that Stereophile, TAS, and most of the rest of the "audiophile press" plug MQA "at every turn" and have done so for at least 3 years now - your spin is just that, spin.

 

TRUE ✔️

 

37 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

you'd think Stereophile and TAS are plugging MQA at every turn, when it actually comes up only episodically.

 

FALSE ❌

[MikeyFresh]

19 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

The thought of a MQA "ecosystem" is truly disturbing. 

 

That it is, although in the case of LS, it's just consultant-speak BS and nothing more.

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I don't think the snarky remarks are adding much. 

 

I must have missed those.

 

20 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Disregarding any suspicions of MQA being a DRM attempt

 

That cannot ever be disregarded.

 

20 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I found a couple instances where people claimed that the hardware  reconstruction after unfolding in software actually completely restored a 24/96K recording.

 

Forget any "couple instances where people claimed" anything and see the very real technical analysis in this and other threads where Mans, Arch, and Frederic have provided various proof debunking 24/96 MQA "restoration" claims, unless you buy into the idea that Master Quality Adulterated somehow equates to 24/96 just because Bob said so. Or JVS, or JA, or RH, et al. nor any little blue LED or other visual indicator/security blanket that guards against FOMO.

[MikeyFresh]

18 minutes ago, Paul R said:

What do you have that is new? 

 

The very same could be asked of you, and I've seen both your own and Lee's bogus veiled references to MQA here in the last page of posts as a lame not-clever veiled attempt at validating it from various angles.

 

Nice try.

 

While we're at it, nice attempt at the very same playbook that's been going on for literally years now: fail to answer any actual proof provided by technical experts and just pretend it doesn't exist, never at any time react to anything of substance previously offered, except in this case its just pretend there's "nothing new" even though no credible response to what you claim is old has never been provided by anyone, least of all you.

 

Responding in italics does not make any specific point, nor provide additional impact.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

And your point is? That testing has shown lossy restoration? 

 

 No, my point is that testing has shown MQA is lossy.

 

I think in recent pages MP3+ has been offered as a reasonable description if Master Quality Adulterated  proves undesirable for whatever reason.

[MikeyFresh]

9 hours ago, Paul R said:

Like I said, you are not putting out anything new.

 

But you have with a vague reference to supposedly having heard of a "couple instances where people claimed" complete 24/96 restoration?

 

Of course if one has the correct software and hardware implementation only. Otherwise it's FOMO, and that's the intended takeaway I suppose, rush out and buy a Mytek or Pro-Ject or iFi DAC so that you can hear this wonderful 24/96 complete reconstruction for yourself, complete with the added bonus of that all-elusive time domain correction.

[MikeyFresh]

12 hours ago, Paul R said:

But there is always the chance you young people might have some new take on an old issue.

 

I don't know why you'd presume to know anyone's particular age, but I am not young.

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I doubt you have the math or experience to evaluate MQA, especially as the only way to do so is by looking at the results and working backwards.

 

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I wish you well, but doing bad things like you are doing will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.  That isn't a threat by the way, just a prediction. 

 

Welcome to my Ignored members list Mr. (self proclaimed) Highbrow/know-it-all, you are too clever.

 

Victory lap, pat yourself on the back, you really are a higher authority of some sort, what with all of the very compelling proof you've been providing?

 

 I heard Lee is also good at math some pages back, also self-proclaimed curiously enough.

[MikeyFresh]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

a preference for what is in all likelihood an entirely different mastering.

 

This would seem to be the only plausible explanation given the other points you made.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

These are incredibly weak arguments against MQA.

 

This from the guy whose pro-MQA stances are the poster child for weak "arguments".

[MikeyFresh]

29 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

What a crock! Your representation of the events is easily refuted by the video, which is available online for anyone to watch.

 

 

A classic case of sometimes the truth hurts, that video speaks volumes.

 

29 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

@Lee Scoggins, perhaps if you didn't spend so much time posting in this thread, you might finally free up the time to do that technical research on MQA that you repeatedly promised to do after you first showed up here flogging your web article on the business-model benefits of MQA.

 

Either Lee has a very poor/selective memory, or he's convinced himself that as sufficient time goes by no one really remembers anything, allowing him to simply ignore the past while continuing to offer the equivalent of alternative facts in this thread. His misrepresentation of the appalling behavior of MQA Ltd.'s official representatives at RMAF18 is yet another example of such. 

 

Since Lee is dredging up RMAF18 in purely disingenuous fashion, I'll restate all over again that Jbara et al (read: Lee's buddy from Atlanta) could not have been worse brand ambassadors for MQA on that day, atrocious planning and execution there, they looked like dummy amateurs. I'm surprised Richemont didn't dismiss them shortly thereafter, though in the case of Jbara it's pretty telling. He is there due to his deep ties to the record labels, nothing more, he has no past track record of building businesses from the ground up in a senior leadership role.