MQA is Vaporware

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

And what are your motives?  You joined on October 5th, you've made 40 posts so far, 37 of which are overtly critical  of MQA.  Why are you on this forum and what are you adding positively to the Computer Audiophile community?

My positive addition is ridding the "Computer Audiophile" community of the cancer known as MQA.. fake format

marketed on numerous lies. Oh yeh, and it is lossy.

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’re hurting your own message with a post like that. 

that is your opinion. in my view, my message is clear as day, and to the point.

 

audiophiles blather on about being True To The Source.

 

and MQA spits right in the face of that premise.

 

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you truly wanted to see MQA fail, a different tact would get you much further. 

sorry, disagree. with so many ignorant shills recruited for MQA,, and with members of the press

floating the most absurd, dishonest notions about MQA freely, being nice gets zilch.

 

that being said..I am all ears.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

By the way @Fair Hedon I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I just believe you could be more effective going at things a different way. 

I appreciate that, and your comment is fair.  No pun intended.

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, Norton said:

 

If that is how you regard audiophiles, to repeat myself, why are you posting on this audiophile forum?

Hey, enjoy your "MQA Ready" DAC. It's your right.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, beetlemania said:

 

An illumined MQA light is certainly the best cure for audiophile nervosa ever conceived

 

Meanwhile, I found that John Atkinson DID send his raw files plus impulse response to MQA 

Why on Earth would he do that?

Are you saying he sent the stems, the multi-track files, and not the two channel mixes???

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

Is that the best reply you can muster? 

 

So you join this forum pretty much exclusively to slag off MQA, clearly  hold audiophiles in contempt and don't appear to have anything positive to contribute to the field of computer audio.  If anything you are making me think maybe there's something in this MQA after all....

 

 

 

 

Seriously, is there is something wrong with your comprehension? What is the title of this thread? What is the topic

of this thread?  When I need your advice on what content to post and on what threads I will drop you a line.

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, beetlemania said:

 

In the discussion section of the linked article, JA wrote:

 

So, he sent 1) his final mix; 2) tracks of each of three mic pairs; and 3) the impulse responses!

Clearly to stack the deck for Uncle Bob. The story is becoming more pathetic with each passing week.

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

Sorry, as a so called "reviewer" that is not good enough. You are supposed to be a consumer advocate by definition,

not a marketing operative. It is clear you are not capable of critical reporting.

[Fair Hedon]

8 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Lee was a fixture for many years over at the Hoffman forum.  His "reviews" always include copious name dropping of luminaries in audiophilia.  It always appeared to me (and others) that those relationships were far more important to him than providing objective information to consumers.  I remember a forum conversation where he said something along the lines of, "I'll always trust an industry insider more than someone attempting objective testing".  That was enough for me to filter his raves.  He caught a bit of flack for his unrelenting Shunyata advocacy.  Literally hundreds of pro-Shunyata posts over at Hoffman.

 

Lee has to be pro-MQA, because he wants Bob Stuart to like him so he can tell his readers how he met Bob and how amazingly awesome Bob is.

 

absolutely 100% spot on. I mean bullseye. Bingo. Bam.

 

Not only name dropping..but FIRST name dropping..Bob Stuart is always "Bob"...as In "I am sure Bob has the good of all audiophiles in mind with MQA"...

 

You nailed it.

[Fair Hedon]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

Surely it is "my good friend Bob."

Uncle Bob.

[Fair Hedon]

20 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Let's not forget what Brian Lucey accomplished this year. At the Los Angeles Audio Show this year he called Bob Stuart and Robert Harley liars and sent the MQA crowd up to hide in the Wilson room. Setting the stage for the avalanche of criticism The Absolute Sound received when they wrote their MQA articles. Accepted an invitation to appear on an MQA panel at RMAF causing its cancellation and causing MQA to announce they will not engage detractors. RMAF was left with Danny Kaey Sunday to try and at least turn down the volume. All Danny did was encourage MQA detractors to keep the pressure on and the volume up.

 

Brian is a professional with great integrity. He also is trusted by many of the great artists of our time.

He is also an audiophile. He does not suffer fools. You don't make a ton  of friends that way, but who cares.

He could have easily put his ethics aside and endorsed MQA like Bob Ludwig and opened up new revenue streams.

[Fair Hedon]

7 hours ago, 4est said:

Yes, but it you are cherry picking two of the most knowledgeable posters on this site. There are many others here that just froth at the mouth. IIRC, people were all over him about DR when he repeatedly stated it was not his decision. Sure his answers were rough, but what do you expect him to do- spend hours attempting to defend his livelihood to a bunch of hobbyists while alienating his clientele? I felt for him. I work in the custom home industry, and I'd hate to have to defend myself for the products that I make. Like him, I am just a cog in the wheel controlled by others.

Beautifully stated. 

 

Like you I am sure, Brian's passion is to produce the best product he can within the parameters his clients want.

 

The DR lynch mob was over the top, and the last 12 months has proven being nice gets you nowhere.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We like to use facts around here. A couple people criticizing BL's work doesn't equal a lynch mob. You miss the vast majority of people around here who just want to learn something without being called an idiot. 

 

Those of you who who keep talking about this undeserved harsh treatment BL received are really dreaming things up in your head. You read into comments way more than I could ever imagine. 

 

When people criticize my work, the last thing I'd ever do is call them names and attack them personally. That's Trump style and BL style. Those who can't handle criticism shouldn't do work that the public consumes. 

 

Factual evidence or you're wrong. 

No, sorry, if was more than a "couple" of people.

 

Secondly, you might find this amusing, but my quote about not being nice actually pertained to the rise of Trump, not about this board, which could have been prevented if the press and the opposition was not so "nice".

 

Although you could also apply it to the rise of MQA in general. Way too many gave it a pass...just my opinion.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

11 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Sorry, I’m not doubting your intentions, but it sounds more like you drank the Koolaid after talking to “Bob” and others. As one example, you didn’t pick up on the fact that MQA is far from lossless. Nor did you understand that “authenticated” can mean some faceless bureaucrat at a record label “approved” the MQA version. How do you think all those thousands and millions of MQA songs are getting approved at such a rapid rate? Some mastering engineers have already confirmed that this is what’s happened with the MQA versions of  some of the albums they mastered. 

 

As far as more hi-res music, why do we need MQA for that? Is something preventing the labels from releasing hi-res? It certainly isn’t streaming: Hi-res flac can be streamed with no issue. And a properly produced 18/96 flac  made from a 24/96 master is actually deeper in bit depth and has more resolution that so-called 24/96 MQA file, which is at most 17 bits in depth and throws away the higher end of the resolution. Oh, and by the way, that 18/96 file is also smaller than the MQA version, when streamed....So I ask again, why do we need MQA in order to get more hi-res?

Where is the PLUS ONE MILLION BUTTON?

[Fair Hedon]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Just a follow up.  Mr. Scoggins has posted the first in a series of over-the-top love letters to MQA.

 

Here's just a sample of the sycophancy:

 

 

What a joke. I sniffed out this shill from day one. His fake neutrality was galling

[Fair Hedon]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sorry, I think we need to stop using the word “shill” all the time. Lee seems to have been  too willing to accept what he was told, and not particularly critical of what he was being told.  He may be incorrect, it doesn’t make him a “shill”. 

"Not particularly critical"? That is the understatement of the decade so far.

 

PTA's editor I think does a pretty good job of being a consumer advocate, but these write ups are just absolute drivel

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

49 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I stand by that word.  I think it sums up the value of cleverly using a convenience-driven audience to drive better sound quality adoption.  I don't think we have seen that before except to a lesser extent the current LP phenomena which can offer better sound quality than CD.  But with LPs, there is not enough money to remaster the whole catalog.  With digital, though, we have the ability.

This is has been the audiophile so called "press" approach..double down, and dig deeper into hole, regardless

of what the reality of the technology is. MQA has NOTHING to do with sound quality.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Sorry, you're late to that party.

LOL!!! Does he know Lincoln was shot?

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Your repeated use of the term "shill" is completely unwarranted.  It is a shame that Computer Audiophile even allows such personal attacks.  I have made a good faith effort to report what I have found works in audio.  Having a different opinion is not cause for belittling my hard work to interview a variety of folks working in the industry and report what I find.

 

As for Shunyata, Black Cat, and Audioquest, I post enthusiastically about some of their products because I have first-hand experience with the sound quality improvements they offer.

If the term Shill offends you, and you consider a personal attack, you are entitled to voice that.

 

But one thing you clearly are, and this is not name calling, just a statement of fact based on your conduct, posts, and articles, is an industry sycophant. Your name dropping, rose colored view of anything manufacturers print in their marketing material does not serve your reader. It just gets you more gear to "review".

[Fair Hedon]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

One thing you clearly are is a useful idiot.  You are being manipulated by bad mastering engineers like Brian Lucey who stand to lose money from the MQA approach.  By attacking honest journalists, you are creating large amounts of bad information that obscure the good news of more hirez music.  As a result many readers of the CA community will be uninformed about MQA and may miss the advantage of large catalogs of music.

 

Perhaps even worse, your constant attacks on those with a different opinion is scaring away good people from even wanting to participate on the board thereby lowering the quality of good discussion and exploration.

 

When a community has a widespread reputation for having biased discussion and personal attacks, very few people with experience want to participate. And that is what has happened here.

You clearly show a total lack of understanding of how the business works.

 

Brian Lucey would stand to GAIN financially by embracing MQA whole-heartedly.  By becoming an independent MQA encoding station, he would MAKE MORE MONEY. 

 

But unlike you, he has integrity.

 

Your last few posts have clearly demonstrated that you are in no way a journalist, but an industry hanger on who wants access.I think everybody here knew you could only keep it together for so long pretending to be neutral, and an "honest journalist" (thanks for the laugh!). Oh well, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Now smile!

[Fair Hedon]

14 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Some observations:

 

1. The labels purchased encoding devices so I don't think there is any money to be made by opening up an encoding station.

 

2. Mastering engineers get paid multiple times when they master for different formats. If there is an MQA encoding then the number of times they can get paid goes down (at least in digital) to one time.

 

3. The reason I say that Brian Lucey is a bad engineer is due to poor sound quality.  Sure, Brian has more credits than me on Allmusic but that doesn't speak to the quality of his work.  Now maybe we could be generous and right some of this off to what his clients or label wanted.

Totally and utterly incorrect.  Ask Bob Ludwig why he wants to be an MQA encoding studio. $$$$.

 

Not only are you not a journalist, but you are spreading information with no factual basis, to add salt to the wounds.

 

To top it off, you are doing what all hacks do, trying to pass off your OPINION as a fact. Amateur hour.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I know John Siau and he is very good guy.  I think Benchmark is considering MQA however so their views on the encoding seem to be changing.  Bruno Putzeys and I have talked briefly at shows around his N-Core technology but I respect his opinion as well.  But I have to weight the varying evidence of different experts and make an informed decision as best I can.

"But I have to weight the varying evidence of different experts and make an informed decision as best I can."

 

Please. Spare us.

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think in many ways, I am where Norton is on all this.  I hear the benefits of MQA encoding and it sounds like 24/96 playback to me.  I am having a hard time seeing the downside of having more hirez files available.

 

What if we suppose that MQA is slightly lossy...

 

Do we care if we get a hirez version of millions of tracks?

 

Getting a new sonic standard off the ground is incredibly hard to do given that many in the industry don't, oddly enough, value sound quality.  MQA seems to have got all the big labels on board.

 

I doubt we could replicate that through other formats, such as FLAC, etc.

 Your language is clearly intended to soften clear negatives of MQA.... "slightly lossy'?

 

"sounds like 24/96 playback to me"....

 

The fact that MQA can not deliver sample rates above 96, and that it throw out bits should be enough for

anyone to know this is garbage technology.

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I am not sure this is true.  According to Ken Forsythe, if the file exists in 24/192 then 24/192 MQA can be offered.

Which shows you are being, what was it you said...a useful what?

 

MQA upsamples anything above 96 to the original sample rate. If you get 192 it is coming form an upsampled process.

 

LOSSLESS.

 

Do your homework then come back. Maybe next time you won't get a knew corn hole the size of a comet crater torn

into your backside.