MQA is Vaporware

[james45974]

2 minutes ago, fung0 said:

Instead, MQA chose to limit expert testing of its new technology, and surround the specs with patent barriers, non-disclosure agreements and bafllegab. Worse, it tailored its proposed new format to appeal not to consumers, but to the basest short-term instincts of large publishers and distributors. The 'authenticated' part, in particular, has been shown to have no connection whatsoever to the claimed benefits of 'audio origami.' It's an anti-feature which has no obvious purpose other than to encourage corporate buy-in and maximize licensing revenue.

 

From a consumer standpoint I am eagerly awaiting the many filters that will no doubt be offered to the marketplace as "MQA like".  I have no issue with furthering the pursuit of perfecting digital playback, but MQA seems to be intent on alienating what may be a good portion of their potential customer base with their practices.

[james45974]

54 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Can anybody explain me the economic or other rationale of Stereophiles MQA unconditional endorsement?! Today another DAC review is up that sings the song of MQAs qualities.

Um, because the editor has become a groveling shill?

[james45974]

I find it interesting, maybe it is a false perception by me, but whenever there seems to be too long of a lull in the discussion about MQA from the mainstream people up pops something like the fawning review of a 10 month old piece of equipment.  It's like they have to fan the flames every once in a while to try and keep the smoldering fire going.

[james45974]

On 9/1/2017 at 3:17 PM, Rt66indierock said:

Back to MQA a few comments on the MQA press release.

 

Thanks for the analysis.  Makes the "Major Announcement" press release kind of look pathetic and like it has a hint of desperation to it!

 

If you have a good product it should almost sell itself.  The fact the MQA is 'working hard' to sell their technology this long after the initial announcement says a lot.  And the talk about how it takes time to establish the the market has a whif of BS, again the technology should be selling itself by now, IMO.

[james45974]

Interesting results from Archimago, basically a draw.  Seems to me that was the result also with one of the first listening tests by Stereophile, I believe, a couple of years ago, it was basically a draw.  How they came around to be such a cheerleader is a good que$tion.

 

I wonder why I haven't seen more from various manufacturer's defending their latching on to MQA, NDA notwithstanding.  There seems to be a few manufacturers who are not implementing MQA who make their positions well known but I have yet to see positions from the side implementing MQA that don't seem anything less than the standard MQA marketing material.  When will the first manufacturer get the idea that they have been hoodwinked to give away their family jewels (their DAC tech to MQA for filter implementation) and walk away.

[james45974]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Michael Ritter thinks there may be more to get out of MQA theoretically and it may be true or he may be trying to justify man hours spent that may be unproductive since MQA is not taking off the way he thought. I tend to believe the latter since he said he supported MQA because there is nothing else on the horizon. And he was not happy to hear about the possibility of a generic standard that would make the time and effort Berkeley Audio Design put into MQA worthless.

 I would think that Berkeley would not be the only company to regret the time they put into MQA if a "generic standard"  becomes available!

[james45974]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Here's a better example, 2L-053:

Note how there's no resemblance between the original (blue) and MQA-rendered (green) spectra above 48 kHz. Moreover, the green spectrum shows a distinct mirroring around 44.1 kHz and again around 88.2 kHz.

 

Wow, this certainly looks like MQA is providing faithful reproduction of the original! 

[james45974]

8 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

This thread is an echo chamber of a handful of malcontents, The ship has sailed guys, MQA is the future of hirez, get over it already. If you don't like MQA and want better SQ buy more vinyl OK? 

Ha!

 

But really, is there a future in hirez?

 

It seems that MQA is merely a dinghy that is springing leaks and the captain is going to have to make a decision to continue or return to port!

[james45974]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You are not alone.

 

 

May I ask, what you deem competition ? (IOW, does this really have to do with Tidal ?)

There is a Tidal equipment company too that makes amplifiers.  I don't know what technology they use.

[james45974]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

All this money enables the covering of the cost of bringing out more hirez files.

There is still no proven market for high res beyond a fringe/niche audiophile market.  It doesn't seem like there would be much money to be made there!

[james45974]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Also, I am not defending MQA, so far I am defending the business model.

Defending putting one over on the consumer by hawking a questionable product is not what I would want to defend.

 

There should be more pointed questions to those manufacturers who have incorporated MQA in their product line, make them defend themselves also, don't leave it only to MQA to defend their product

[james45974]

I see the number of 10,000 MQA recordings being touted.  Yeah, break out the champagne!

 

According the internet there are 30 million tracks each on iTunes and Spotify alone.  At approximately 8 songs per album there would be approximately 3,750,000 albums.  Therefore, the 10,000 MQA albums works out to an amazing 2.6 tenths of a percent!

 

(Numbers subject to review!  )

[james45974]

4 minutes ago, rickca said:

It's clear from the lack of revenue that this is the MQA business development strategy.  They probably offer free technical consulting as well.  MQA is also providing plenty of free marketing.

So, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, will anyone really pay for MQA?  It seems to be a "throw away tech, put the logo on the casework" thing for some manufacturers, and I would imagine the consuming public will balk at paying a higher streaming bill.  When you get everyone used to low or no cost it is hard to turn the tide.

[james45974]

9 minutes ago, rickca said:

Not if you turn on DRM and withdraw all other distribution formats.

then that will confirm some peoples worst fears!  I don't see a winning side for MQA either way:  They give away things for free or very low cost or they alienate customers by locking things down.  MQA will go down the toilet either way.

[james45974]

To carry on with my previous thought, is DRM effectively off the table?  There are plenty of protestations from the MQA side that there is no DRM with MQA.  If in fact things are locked down at some point there will be plenty of writers, magazines, manufacturers, and inventors with a lot of egg on their face!  They will be called dumb at least or liars at worst!  How could they recover from the embarrassment?

[james45974]

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Which brings up the import of the Tidal MQA link.  What if there was a cost, say $5 or so a month for MQA?  Well, I think the vast majority of those Roon users would be paying.  In other words my sense (from time spent on the forum - I'm a Roon lifetimer as well) is that the majority have if not completely bought into the MQA message, are at least "curious" enough to support it.  Many (most) of them are also typical "subjectivised" audiophiles, and my sense is that they "hear" the alleged advantage of whatever Audiophildom puts in front of them.  In other words Bob S and MQA understand the Audiophile well and have to a real extant succeeded in their mission to sell it, even if there is also real blowback as well...

But there is that old conceit that the audiophile market means anything in the Big Picture!  Apple recently reported it has passed 50 million subscribers, on its way to catch up with Spotify.  Tidal and Roon are being left in the dust!

[james45974]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Re: Mr. Quint.  I wish I could meet some of the people on this forum in person because it is impossible to get a complete picture of someone just by their words.  Mr. Quint may be the proverbial Life of the Party!  But nevertheless, the phrase "book smart, common sense dumb" comes to my mind. YOMV!!!

[james45974]

11 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

So stop making fools of yourselves by pretending it doesn't exist. Or, just keep making fools of yourselves. Makes no difference to me. 

When are the manufacturer's who jumped in with MQA going to realize what an embarrassment it is becoming to be associated with it?  Is is really a farce!

[james45974]

10 minutes ago, rickca said:

I guess they will say their customers and dealers demanded it.  MQA has clearly been lobbying dealers to do exactly that.  The hardware and software partners are just going to look stupid for investing R&D resources in MQA implementation if MQA is unsuccessful.

could be perceived as somewhat of a Faustian bargain by the hardware and software partners.......

[james45974]

1 hour ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I thought I'd go ahead an answer a few posts. I can't keep doing this however; there's simply not enough time, and only a few things here are worth responding to. 

 

It's apparent to me that you spent hundreds of hours reverse-engineering MQA in order to try to prove that it's invalid. 

And he was successful!  

[james45974]

45 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I have nothing to hide. 

I have never had the skills for what I would call "pugalistic debating" but it looks to me like you are sparring out of your weight class

[james45974]

30 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

This is what, when pugs box? 

 

This is why I use the "circle jerk" metaphor a couple of days ago. You have a nice little insular community here, in which you reliably reinforce each other's opinions. Feels good, doesn't it? 

Jim, I try to have an open mind but I am unconvinced that you know what the hell you are talking about! The evidence is all there in your Stereophile pieces!

[james45974]

11 minutes ago, miguelito said:

"Scientific integrity"

Using this term in relation to MQA seems very suspect so far!  ?

[james45974]

54 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

The more I think about it, floating the notion that MQA should not be dismissed because it might benefit

younger people is utterly bizarre.

 

And clearly, Robert Harley was completely unconcerned with "younger people" when he crowned MQA a scientific revolution. I just think Mr. Quint is running out of reasons to cave and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I thought this was pretty bizarre also!

 

I am not one to give any attention to conspiracy theory rubbish but I wonder if AQuint's participation in this forum is not some sort of "assignment", a distraction.  He certainly doesn't give me the idea that he knows what he is talking about, something which I have given my opinion on before, and in the intervening time I have still not been convinced otherwise.  I can almost hear it: "Go over to CA and keep them busy....", you fill in the blank.  He certainly isn't offering anything of real substance.

[james45974]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Rabid anti-MQA sentiment and personal attacks destroy your credibility. He wins because of your lack of self control.

Hasn't he lost on his lack of credibility already, or do two wrongs make a right?