MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The only time stuff is deleted is when threads go off the rails and I sweep 10-20 comments into the trash. 

 

You mean like all the non-mQa related posts here over the last several days?

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 5/22/2022 at 1:08 PM, JoshM said:

It's not clear which Steely Dan tapes, exactly, were destroyed in the Universal fire. Moreover, there's a long, complicated, contested history of which Steely Dan CDs (long before the Universal fire) used the original analog tapes versus digital transfers made in the early-'80s.

 

I spent a bit of time in the Aughties looking at this.

 

Aja is probably the most controversial example as Roger Nichols found the MFSL version of Aja to be lacking, looked into it, and found they used a lacquer cutting master to make that CD.  Not exactly the "Original Master Recording" that MoFi promises.  Eventually, a set of Steely Dan remasters came out of this snafu in the mid-90s that sounded pretty good, except for Aja.

 

 

I found these older digital versions (CDs) of Aja to be the best.  They are very similar to each other, but not identical:

 

MCAD-37214-DIDX 55 (Japan)

MCLD-19145 (UK)

 

The point here is that major record companies never cared about the quality of the recordings available to consumers.

 

mQa marketing pitch to record companies is that it's "good enough" for consumers AND audiophiles, who don't deserve the unadulterated digital masters.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

I think discussions about ad blockers on a web site that relies on ad revenue to keep the site going is quite disrespectful to @The Computer Audiophile

[Samuel T Cogley]

15 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

They are called the audiophile press. Biggest suckers since the people who bought tax shelters.

Suckers or shills?  Can't be both.  🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

44 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

World domination just isn't in the cards.

 

Not as eloquent a eulogy as I had hoped for MQA, but I'll take it.

 

Maybe one day we can have a serious discussion about the incestuous relationship between the audiophile press and manufacturers (or, in this case, software makers), but I doubt it.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 2/5/2023 at 3:58 AM, ARQuint said:

I'm just one guy and this is just one album—and it still seems to me that prior expectations may undermine an honest assessment of MQA for some listeners. But when a subjective investigation of MQA is undertaken fairly, methodically, and dispassionately, audiophiles can potentially come away with a personal sense of how they rate MQA sonically that eschews both pie-in-the-sky gullibility and caustic dogmatism.

 

 

Notice that true believers of Bob Stuart are just harmlessly "gullible".  People who saw MQA for scam that it is are "caustic".  Must be pure hell working for Lee Scoggins.  

[Samuel T Cogley]

For me, "the norm" is the brazenly incestuous relationship between the audiophile "press" and the manufacturers.  Before we go all Q-Anon, let's get back to that.

[Samuel T Cogley]

45 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Back many years ago when they were enthusiast's publications I subscribed to Stereophile and bought the occasional TAS.

I let my subscription to Stereophile run out in the mid 90's.

It was clear what they turned into.

 

 

I subscribed to Stereo Review back in the late 70s.  They reviewed both gear and music.  While I have a moderate appreciation for Marshall Chapman's Jaded Virgin, you would have thought its release was a watershed event if you read the review.  That was back in the days when the Nakamichi Dragon had just come out.

 

I agree completely that the surviving "audio enthusiast publications" have become marketing cut-and-paste factories.  The hubris of their current employees has to be experienced to be believed.

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

With respect, you're missing the point.

 

Perhaps you are, as well.  Why do we need to hear any more about MQA?  Who do these relentless mentions of MQA benefit?

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

This thread is up to 1015 pages with what looks like posts added daily.  It's crazy that this is being talked about so often but it seems that neither MQA opponents nor MQA proponents can stop talking about it.   

 

I have ignored all but a couple posts in this thread.  Easy enough to do if one isn't hearing the repetition.  

 

I meant the relentless mentions in the trade publications that are often indistinguishable from pure marketing copy.

 

This thread is the only place on the internet where consumers are represented.  I, for one, am very happy to see that some technical facts about MQA (it's lossy, and the filters can produce artifacts) have prevailed. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

In spite of the two highly selective quotes posted here, the column had nothing to do with MQA per se. It was about making fun of a Chat Bot that comes up with increasingly goofy technical explanations for MQA and other audiophile memes. JA gave you the link, I suspect clicking on it and reading it for yourself won’t raise their hit count enough to make a difference to their advertisers. It really has nothing to do with explaining/promoting MQA. As far as I can tell it’s intended as a humor piece.

 

I appreciate the information.  Regardless of the context, these publications just can't stop themselves when it comes to providing legitimacy to MQA.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

27 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The claims aren't even consistent:

 

 

24 x 384k = 9.2Mbps, not 20Mbps. So which is it? (On second thought, don't bother. If at some point there's a working codec popular enough to be included with music I may listen to and products I may choose to purchase, then let me know what the actual tested capabilities are. Until then, I don't think this merits my further attention.)

 

You sure that's the right number for stereo?

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said:

It would be 2x those numbers for 2 channels, however I also fully agree with this aspect:

 

 

 

When given the choice of lossy codecs, I'll always choose AAC over MQA 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

Whatever the reason for Peter Veth's obsequious behavior in regards to MQA, he can't be trusted to provide objective information.

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

It is known as the "Big Lie", often attributed to Joseph Goebbels, kept current by Donald Trump and his supporters in denying the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election.

 

Edward Bernays never gets the recognition he should at times like this.  He essentially devised ways to profit from psychology.  Sometimes referred to as "The Father Of Public Relations", he essentially formed the template that is used to "sway" people either in a consumer or political context.

 

Goebbels was a mere student of Bernays.  "Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos."

[Samuel T Cogley]

Two first-time posters with a seemingly pro-MQA view post in this thread in the same 24 hour period.  I'm sure it's a coincidence. 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 hours ago, ECL said:

At the end of the day, there's absolutely NO WAY and NO CHANCE IN HELL that MQA is taking over anything, nor replacing anything superior to itself. ANY talk on this subject comes from people with their head where the sun don't shine and completely ignorant of how music/recording industry works. So, after we put that to bed,

 

This and your curious use of the word "partisan", which is commonly used by the MQA principals to describe skeptics/critics, makes me doubt the alleged purity of your intentions.

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 hours ago, ECL said:

Third, I am not pro-MQA.

 

With all due respect, the number of keystrokes you have dropped in this thread in the last 2-3 days makes this something like a bald-faced lie.

 

You're using the standard MQA playbook: dehumanize the most outspoken critics and try to convince the rest they're not giving MQA a fair chance because they've been corrupted by The Partisans.

 

And just how obsequious can you be toward Bob Stuart and still have any dignity left?  Unless you ARE Bob Stuart?