MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Sure it's not required and doesn't 'need to be submitted'. Agreed.

 

But someone making claims for years must realise they look a bit silly... 

 

I never said he needs to put up or shut up... just that it looks silly... like perhaps he makes up a lot of stuff?

 

Again, this is coming from someone (myself) that would prefer MQA go away...

Can you provide definitive specific example of how the OP "makes up a lot of stuff"?

 

Links? Thank you.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

5 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

I already did in this thread... over years? Only a couple times where I engaged but seen much more here for years now. But you can search this very thread to see my examples.

 

Again, this is coming from someone (myself) that would prefer MQA go away...

That is a non answer. I simply asked for examples where you have definitive proof he "makes stuff up"....

 

Or, are YOU making stuff up?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, asdf1000 said:

 

I asked the question "perhaps he makes up a lot of stuff?" and I based this on (as a minimum) the couple times i engaged in this very thread with him...  Pretty sure you were here in this thread at the time too and also engaged.

 

 

So the narrative that he "blows smoke" or tells tall tales is really Fake News. Thinly veiled, passive aggressive attacks on his credibility?

 

Not singling you out by the way.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Please refresh my memory on what I've made up. Most of the posts I've are about files converted and financial information.  

It seems you are a legit victim of Fake News. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

7 hours ago, UkPhil said:

Are these “boutique” audiophile items still adding MQA because of consumer pressure, the reviewer sort of brushed passed the format in this review https://www.monoandstereo.com/2019/03/brinkmann-audio-nyquist-mk-ii-streaming.html?m=1

Reasonable review considering what he had to work with. This DAC measured horribly on John Atkinson's test bench. 

 

The price is a joke. Clearly NO customer asked for MQA because the "Mach 1" version of this brick came to market with MQA, and this company had no other digital products.

 

Then there is this..the author claims the manual says that DSD is limited to single rate via Ethernet..for 20 grand???

And no, it has nothing to do with the Ethernet bandwidth. Expensive paper weight. 

 

Contrast this with the subjective goop found in the Streophile review of the first version. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not sure which logic class teaches that method of reasoning. 
 

Clearly when bringing a product to market, manufacturers consult their dealers and distributors for feedback. Intern, these guys provide feedback based on market demand, not based on a technological assessment of available options. 

In fact you are wrong. This interview details the fact he designer decided to include MQA of his own choice.

 

In fact, this is a very illuminating read for all on this thread. It shows how clueless many so called authorities and luminaries are. All credit to the interviewer. We get a behind the curtain look...

 

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-870&lang=en

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

17 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

If MQA Ltd becomes defunct, will the companies that signed on to MQA still have to adhere to their non-disclosure agreements?

I doubt it. Even if they do violate the NDA when MQA shits the bed, who will enforce it? With what money?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Can the rights be sold off?  There are patent rights that are used for frivolous lawsuits.

That would be a question for an intellectual property lawyer. But of what value would the rights to an NDA pertaining to a defunct company and dead technology be? 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, asdf1000 said:

 

The only part I found interesting was this:

 

"I asked MQA guys why they sell license for using the format and they told me they had to because they were buying licenses from record labels they were working with."

 

Does this mean MQA Ltd doesn't receive any income from the labels?

 

Their only income is from hardware and software (1st unfold) licenses? 

 

 

Good catch. It is easy to see why the labels got involved with MQA. There was NO COST to them, in fact, they were paid. We also know they were given shares in MQA for "services rendered". 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Again, I attended far different logic classes than you did in college. Your comments make zero sense to me. 

 

If you believe that you read what you said and that this means zero feedback from dealers, distributors and customers was involved, then I can no longer be involved in a discussion with you. We speak different languages. 

 

I dislike MQA as much as the next guy but I'd put you well past the religious right wing on the continuum, if there was one for MQA. Perhaps that's a compliment to you, given your stance.

When MQA gets flushed down the toilet, you can buy me a Pastrami sandwich and Knish in appreciation. 😃

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Ugh...Pastrami sucks compared to Montreal Smoked Meat. 🙂

I gotta say Schwartz's meat is A Ok.🤠

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One thing that MQA has going against it is the fact that product certification for HiFi components takes a long time. Requiring physical product testing etc...

 

Its a pain in the butt for many manufacturers. Perhaps they’ll forgo the hassle in the next product cycle. 

"Perhaps they’ll forgo the hassle in the next product cycle."

 

Which proves the first time around it was a colossal wast of time. And all those dealers that were "consulted", were clueless. 😎

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

12 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

It is interesting how times have changed. There was a time when the major studios,  in conjunction with their magazine mouthpieces,  would have simply implemented MQA, the music consumer be damned.  They would not have even used lubricant.

But this is the age of the internet.  People openly questioned the BS that MQA was spewing,  much to the consternation of MQA and its magazine mouthpieces.  People would not simply bend over and take MQA.

The truth came out about MQA.

That is the paradigm shift.

that press release is great news IMO..if they are down to "dublurring" streamed video....lol...then they have one foot in the grave. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

You really do have a way with words. Don't these rhetorical exercises ever grow tiring? Is MQA still an existential threat for given the present situation that we are all in? Hard to believe that for some posting hasn't just become a bad habit.

any comment on MQA? Ore just trolling/moderating? 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

11 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

That's my point. You're clearly not a Hydrogen Audio kind of guy. There's an inconsistency to the vitriolic response of the most riled-up of anti-MQA posters when compared to their view of other allegedly "debunked" technologies.

 

A year ago in this thread, the most incensed of the anti-MQA folks were calling requests for civility a "deflection". Now pointing out inconsistencies in their attitudes towards different technologies with a disputed science/engineering basis is "deflection." It's perhaps a useful short-term debate strategy but ultimately one that doesn't hold water.

 

A Big Lie, by the way, is that TAS has had all that much to say about MQA for a couple of years—there hasn't been much since Robert's articles of 2016/2017 when the technology was breaking into general audiophile consciousness. Mostly, it's company press releases online. Do you actually read TAS? Most TAS-haters proudly declare they don't and if that's the case, I'm not sure how you would know how MQA is covered these days. I've been a TAS writer for 25 years and still read each issue closely. We mention MQA when it's an available feature in a DAC and mostly, that's it. If you are a subscriber, have a look at some recent issues. If you're not, I'll spring for a digital subscription so you can look for evidence of rampant MQA shilling. But beware, the magazine is pretty thick and you might get distracted by all those equipment and music reviews that fail to mention those reviled initials.

 

Andy Quint

Dr. Quint:

 

First, I want to thank you for finally addressing your magazine's coverage of MQA, for the first time, after repeated requests.

It is nice to get your perspective, instead of your usual civility crusade.

 

You actually made a valid point with respect to press releases.  

 

As for this statement; "I'll spring for a digital subscription so you can look for evidence of rampant MQA shilling"

 

Aside from mentions of MQA in reviews as a product "feature", this is from Sept of 2019-

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/hi-res-democratization/

 

"To recap, Master Quality Authenticated is an encoding and decoding technology that delivers true high-resolution audio in a file size that can be easily streamed. It is based in part on entirely new research into human hearing as well as on novel digital sampling techniques for natural signals developed for cutting-edge medical imaging and astronomy. MQA’s stated mission is to deliver studio-master sound quality to listeners in a convenient format that anyone can enjoy. Beyond its superior sound quality (even compared with high-bit-rate PCM).."

 

Just above there are three totally untrue statements. 

 

And:

 

"(MQA can) only be described as a miracle of modern digital-audio technology and a boon to music lovers."

 

This is the very definition of shilling, and Mr. Harley presents information that has been shown, without question, via

repeatable analysis, to be bunk. 

 

This is a doubling and tripling down, if anything. 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Actually, Chris, it's incredibly poor - as in grossly misleading and disingenuous.

How about this...🤣

 

"Now along comes a technology that delivers better sound quality than their massive PCM files, requires absolutely no expertise, is inexpensive and convenient, has a low bit rate, and to top it off, is readily available to everyone. With a couple of taps on a smartphone, any kid can stream audio that sounds better than the high-bit-rate files the early adopters worked so hard to acquire. In a single stroke, MQA democratized high resolution and obviated the early adopters’ elite status."

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Thats true, I hadn't thought of it that way. In that sense just more noise from a source of ill repute to completely disregard.

 

 

Now I'm worried for RH, has anyone actually seen him in the flesh lately? I'm concerned the above could only come from an AI-armed robot, an area LS's résumé suggests he's well-versed in.

 

Then again LS was a mouthpiece/salesman, not an engineer, so it's possible TAS under-vetted his résumé, opting instead to just splash his stated credentials onto a hiring press release and call it a day.

Maybe RH will appear as a hologram at the next audio show, if it actually ever takes place.

 

Remember, Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus walked on water, and Bob Stuart created MQA....😜

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

7 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

" Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war".

 

A quote from Shakespeare.

 

Before battle the Roman Legions would release the war dogs to attack their enemy.

 

This recent activity of writers passive-aggressively attacking the "civility" of those who expose the truth about MQA has me concerned that a new round of BS is starting.

 

I will be glad when MQA is finally dead and no longer poses a threat to the music consumer.

Maybe you are on to something..perhaps MQA is planning to start debarring cell phone conversations, or maybe there will be MQA enabled hearing aids, so that those afflicted with hearing loss can hear with no timing errors, or maybe MQA underwear,

so that after a rough nite and one too many tacos, you can play psycho acoustically corrected Butt Trumpet.🤗

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

17 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

People should keep in mind that open standards like FLAC will always be out there.

 

MQA could go the way of HDCD and simply cease to exist.  Does anyone produce HDCD decoders anymore?

Not sure, but what is weird, unless I am mistaken, the Grateful Dead continue to release HDCDs for their excellent live archival sets.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ayre’s new QB-9 Twenty decodes HDCD

 

 

 

It just means they use a Pacific Microsonics Model 1 or Model 2 ADC. 

Actually, and this will be interesting to serious Dead Heads, most Dead live tapes were transferred to digital via the Plangent Process, and they use proprietary encoding. 

 

The GD release a good portion of their live archival releases in 24/192, and also HDCD. Maybe you know, or someone else might, is there a way to encode HDCD via software from 24 bit files? The only other way they can create HDCDs from the Plangent transfers, would be to convert them to analog then back to digital with the Model 1/2 in my estimation. 

 

Tons of detail, here, not for the casual fan:

David Lemieux on the Grateful Dead’s Precision, “Playing,” and ‘Pacific Northwest’

https://jambands.com/features/2018/10/28/david-lemieux-on-the-grateful-deads-precision-playing-and-pacific-northwest/

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Regarding their "novel digital sampling", according to Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated
 

and according to the article often used by MQA opinion makers when they need some fallback SOS article:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality
 

the "novel digital sampling techniques" boil down to overlapping triangular sampling.

So how many ADC's are currently on the market which support this non standard triangular sampling process?

Without fail, your posts shine a bright light into how full of s$$t Harley and Stuart really are. Stay well.🤠

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nice to see a high resolution/streaming article in the more mainstream press that isn’t injected with MQA marketing. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marksparrow/2020/05/27/qobuz-ditches-mp3s-and-welcomes-sonos-into-the-world-of-hi-res-music/amp/

I don't have numbers to prove it, but I am fairly certain the number of MQA releases is slowing down dramatically. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

14 hours ago, UkPhil said:

More from Stereonet and Mr J what would have been shown this year ? https://www.stereonet.co.uk/news/mqa-high-end-munich-2020-announcements

Yawn. I would not spend a shekel oh any of these paperweights. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

11 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

I was an early adopter of MQA. When it was released to the public I first got a  Meridian Explorer 2. I wasn't able to hear any benefit with MQA from this DAC. I got a Dragonfly Red next and patiently waited for its MQA support firmware update. With the Dragonfly I was able to hear the improvement from MQA for the first time. This wasn't a real DAC however being USB dongle type using a tiny IC amp etc, really lacked dynamics. Next I picked up a Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital, and again I heard the benefit of MQA. Although it was better than than the Dragonfly, once again the dynamics were lacking so it was ultimately an unpleasing DAC. For a while after this I was upgrading my record system, then trying to bring my digital up to the level of of my analog so MQA got back-burnered. Finally I got a Myek Liberty which unlike most MQA DACs can do the decoding on all inputs allowing the use of MQA-CD. I still have the Liberty today and it's hooked up to my headphone system. The Cyan was for experimenting with R2R DSD decoding, and Yggdrasil is my latest and probably final attempt to bring my digital up to the level of my analog. That's on hold right now as I'm burning in a Purifi class D amp and my main amp until recently, an Odyssey Stratos, is broken and my filler amps just aren't as good. I tried to fix the Stratos but to no avail, I may have no choice but to send it in for service, possibly upgrade to something better. So things are on hold right now.

 

If the Yggdrasil can bridge the gap, I'll just have to give up on MQA in my main system and leave it for my headphone setup. If the Yggdrasil doesn't help, maybe I'll upgrade to a Manhattan II and bring back MQA, MQA-CD while my analog is for critical listening / when I feel like it.

 

So yes, I have made some effort to validate MQA's results.

Yikes Guff Bee.  After>@MikeyFreshhas had his way with you, you need a Kotex for your Tuchus.

 

You are always good for a chuckle,  Thanks!

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

9 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

I appreciate the reaction image, but if you have a better understanding of the process please share. I understand that MQA Ltd. doesn't want to tell the public how exactly it works because it would be stolen. So we have no choice to go by what Stuart says in interviews and other industry people who have an inside track, for example Roon.

 

It's been repeated several times that time domain correction was the driving motivation of MQA. The business aspect of it, providing a compression technique to make hi-res content delivery more economical is there to bring the streaming services onboard. The authentication aspect is for labels. These are things which MQA, a for-profit company, will try to market to consumers. How they chose to market it isn't relevant to me, I only care about the sonic benefits. Don't you care about the sonic benefits?

You are as delusional as the Orange Cheetoh. "Time Domain Correction" is a complete and utter farce, a fabricated phrase that gullible parlour audiophiles can lap up.

 

"Time Domain Correction" at the expense of resolution? At the expense of aliasing and distortion?

 

And Archimago actually showed us it makes timing errors WORSE.

 

But that is the Orwellian world we now live in.