MQA is Vaporware

[Miska]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Another mistake for comparison (read : I shouldn't have done it) is that the MQA version will have been taken from the "DVD rip". So what happened in the end is that I compared a 2ch Redbook with a from 5.1 downconverted to 2ch DVD version.

 

One thing I don't understand is why people compare RedBook and MQA versions and not original hires and MQA?

 

DVD's usually have uncompressed 2-channel LPCM version too, in addition to a lossy compressed DD/dts 5.1. And quite frequently for this kind of album the original recording is 48 kHz 24-bit, and the RedBook is conversion from that one. So the better starting point would be to rip the DVD 2-channel version as audio-only and then compare against that.

 

I have ripped audio from all the concert DVD's into FLAC (both stereo and 5.1). So I don't need the original discs and don't need to deal with the video part.

[Confused]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

This is (UK) Government funded (BBC) research which measures image width:

 

 

Just as a point of note.  Strictly speaking, the BBC is not UK Government funded.  It is funded from the proceeds of a TV Licence, that you are obliged to purchase if you want to use a TV in the UK, irrespective of what you want to watch on it.  It is a subtle point, because the Government has some say over the cost of the licence, and it is the Government's Police force and court system that will prosecute you if you do not pay the licence.  However, the BBC is therefore independent of Government in terms of how it operates and what research it might choose to perform, the Government is not dictating this stuff.  OK, if this seams overly pedantic, yes I know and apologise for that, but it is a subtle difference.  For what it's worth, the BBC is doing some very worthwhile R&D work currently, the recent CD quality FLAC internet radio streaming initiative being one example.  (MQA free hi-res streaming, you might say......)

[semente]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

Just as a point of note.  Strictly speaking, the BBC is not UK Government funded.  It is funded from the proceeds of a TV Licence, that you are obliged to purchase if you want to use a TV in the UK, irrespective of what you want to watch on it.  It is a subtle point, because the Government has some say over the cost of the licence, and it is the Government's Police force and court system that will prosecute you if you do not pay the licence.  However, the BBC is therefore independent of Government in terms of how it operates and what research it might choose to perform, the Government is not dictating this stuff.  OK, if this seams overly pedantic, yes I know and apologise for that, but it is a subtle difference.  For what it's worth, the BBC is doing some very worthwhile R&D work currently, the recent CD quality FLAC internet radio streaming initiative being one example.  (MQA free hi-res streaming, you might say......)

 

What is the difference between public funded and government funded.

The TV License is not that different from a tax.

 

 

P.S.: it cost a bit under £150 this year.

[firedog]

48 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What is the difference between public funded and government funded.

The TV License is not that different from a tax.

 

 

P.S.: it cost a bit under £150 this year.

The difference is that it isn't part of the gov't budget and gives them more independence. Yes, from your point of view it is a tax, but it goes to the BBC and not to the gov't and ministries. 

[loop7]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:03 PM, synn said:

One inconsistency I noted about MQA:

 

on one hand, they claim that each track has to be examined by their engineers and correction for the original ADC will be applied during the encoding process to MQA. And apparently the files have to be sent to them for this.

 

on the other hand, you hear announcements like how Warner etc. will be converting a huge portion of their catalog to MQA. If you consider the sheer amount of man hours required for this according to the claimed MQA workflow, not to mention the amount of logistics involved, there’s no way they are actually doing what they claim to be doing; unless they have an entire country at their disposal to churn the gears.

Yeah, this is a big hole you point out. When MQA conflicts themselves, it only adds to the controversy.

[mansr]

19 hours ago, semente said:

What is the difference between public funded and government funded.

The TV License is not that different from a tax.

 

P.S.: it cost a bit under £150 this year.

So a bit more than a Netflix subscription. If they put their full back catalogue online, I might even pay it. Having only a month, in some cases just a week, to watch something is ridiculous.

[PeterSt]

19 hours ago, semente said:

The TV License is not that different from a tax.

P.S.: it cost a bit under £150 this year.

 

When I was a kid, over here in Holland we had the same. There was no commercial television as such and the money went to the broadcasting/productions itself, hence productions were paid from it. What, for example, came from it was the programme "TopPop" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopPop) and in the end way more productions which were unique and ahead of time.

 

I don't and didn't know about the UK and the BBC really, but it would be quite visible if the BBC just have the money to create all the great music productions which they do up to date. And what about all the "BBC Sessions" they provided (with about any known band). IOW, it is quite visible that when there's the $ for it, one can make great productions and in case of the BBC it is spent in their field of research (I'd say) : audio.

 

 

[Confused]

39 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I don't and didn't know about the UK and the BBC really, but it would be quite visible if the BBC just have the money to create all the great music productions which they do up to date. And what about all the "BBC Sessions" they provided (with about any known band). IOW, it is quite visible that when there's the $ for it, one can make great productions and in case of the BBC it is spent in their field of research (I'd say) : audio.

 

 

This is a bit of grey area with the BBC.  They also have a commercial division, which sells a whole variety of programming world wide.  It's a grey area, in that the Licence fee paying British public get grumpy about the vast salary that might be paid to a particular TV presenter, but in fact the BBC are making good money selling his performances globally, so actually it's costing nothing, it is in some cases profitable.  This of course leads the commercial programme providers to claim that the BBC is getting unfair subsidy, you could debate this endlessly.

 

As for the Licence fee being no different to a tax, in terms of the money it is not, of course.  Although it is a tax you can choose not to pay, if you choose not to use a television that is.  The point here relates to independent governance, the BBC does manage to stay reasonably independent from government control, certainly in comparison to government controlled TV stations in other parts of the world, where there is direct state control of the output, a mechanism for propaganda.  (recently I have read quotes accusing the BBC News output of 'left wing liberal bias', and also quotes accusing the same of 'right wing bias', so perhaps fair to say they are getting it about right. 

 

My earlier slightly throwaway comment about the BBC's 'MQA free' R&D initiative for FLAC CD quality streaming of radio broadcasts was actually quite serious point.  Imagine if they progressed this to successful 24bit trials?  That would make MQA's arguments for endless file origami look a bit week.

 

[synn]

I hope Qobuz expands to more markets. Their sublime level sounds like a much better alternative to those with enough bandwidth over MQA.

[#Yoda#]

45 minutes ago, synn said:

I hope Qobuz expands to more markets. Their sublime level sounds like a much better alternative to those with enough bandwidth over MQA.

 

Do you mean Sublime or Sublime +? 

 

I compared both, TIDAL HiFi and Qobuz Sublime, for quite a long period and in general I couldn't notice a difference in SQ.

 

In March Qobuz announced to expand their services to Spain, Italy and Poland until summer. As far as I know, this hasn't happen yet.

[synn]

The latter, of course!

[#Yoda#]

9 hours ago, synn said:

The latter, of course!

Personally, I don't see any sense in Sublime + with a 50% extra charge on the basic HiFi streaming service.

 

Anyway if MQA or real HiRes, I'm using streaming services to evaluate music albums for a purchase decision and therefore I don't need to listen to the music superior to redbook quality.

 

Beside this, (basic) Sublime is a great offer for my needs because of the significant discounts on HiRes downloads with a final price that is for sure far below Qobuz own purchase costs and within very view months my annual subscription fee for Sublime is amortized.

 

For sure, I'm not the only customer with this behavior and we will see how long this loss-making business model will last until Xandrie SA pulls the plug, what means "Game Over" for Qobuz, finally and unfortunately, because less competition is always bad for the consumers. 

[Charente]

7 hours ago, #Yoda# said:

... we will see how long this loss-making business model will last until Xandrie SA pulls the plug, what means "Game Over" for Qobuz, finally and unfortunately, because less competition is always bad for the consumers. 

 

That would be such a great pity ... Qobuz is more than just a streaming/download service ... I also enjoy their magazine pages about artists, their tips and equipment tests. However, I do take your point ... the business model does not 'appear' to be robust enough to ensure longevity, ... unless we're missing something in our assumptions.

[synn]

Again, I would like to point out that spotify has not made money in a long time. They do have investor confidence and that’s what matters.

 

in a way, it is good that Qobuz isn’t expanding too fast for their own good.i hope they do survive, they offer a fairly unique experience compared to everyone else.

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, Charente said:

unless we're missing something in our assumptions.

 

Actually Roon's COO said that Qobuz have plans to taken on Roon. 

 

Whether that means UI, DSP or multi zone / grouped zone playback, or all of the above, we'll have to wait and see.

 

But it appears they have big plans.

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/qobuz-news-and-correspondence/17536/8

 

[Charente]

16 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Actually Roon's COO said that Qobuz have plans to taken on Roon. 

 

 

Interesting ... I know very little about how these tie-ups work ... which way would the revenue stream work (i.e. who is the net beneficiary ) ? ... or is it a revenue neutral arrangement  and each partner in the arrangement maximises their offering and achieves opportunity that way ? Would a Roon tie-up mean that Qobuz would have to consider MQA in order to compete with Tidal on the same platform ?

[asdf1000]

5 minutes ago, Charente said:

 

Interesting ... I know very little about how these tie-ups work ... which way would the revenue stream work (i.e. who is the net beneficiary ) ? ... or is it a revenue neutral arrangement  and each partner in the arrangement maximises their offering and achieves opportunity that way ? Would a Roon tie-up mean that Qobuz would have to consider MQA in order to compete with Tidal on the same platform ?

 

All very good questions. But sadly unless something leaks from a credible source, we won't know anything until an official announcement from Qobuz.

 

But definitely interesting as you say.

 

[asdf1000]

20 minutes ago, Charente said:

 

Interesting ... I know very little about how these tie-ups work ... which way would the revenue stream work (i.e. who is the net beneficiary ) ? ... or is it a revenue neutral arrangement  and each partner in the arrangement maximises their offering and achieves opportunity that way ? Would a Roon tie-up mean that Qobuz would have to consider MQA in order to compete with Tidal on the same platform ?

 

Also when I say Qobuz plans to 'take on' Roon, I mean compete, not acquire.

 

That's how I interpret the Roon comment anyway: 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/qobuz-news-and-correspondence/17536/8

 

 

[Charente]

@Em2016 Ah, OK ... not quite what I thought !

[MetalNuts]

On 11/11/2017 at 9:12 PM, Confused said:

Just as a point of note.  Strictly speaking, the BBC is not UK Government funded.  It is funded from the proceeds of a TV Licence, that you are obliged to purchase if you want to use a TV in the UK, irrespective of what you want to watch on it.  It is a subtle point, because the Government has some say over the cost of the licence, and it is the Government's Police force and court system that will prosecute you if you do not pay the licence.  However, the BBC is therefore independent of Government in terms of how it operates and what research it might choose to perform, the Government is not dictating this stuff.  OK, if this seams overly pedantic, yes I know and apologise for that, but it is a subtle difference.  For what it's worth, the BBC is doing some very worthwhile R&D work currently, the recent CD quality FLAC internet radio streaming initiative being one example.  (MQA free hi-res streaming, you might say......)

 

As a former British colonist, I understand that BBC is formed under a Royal Charter and it is different from the Act of the Parliament.  There are a lot of Societies, Institutes or companies formed under a Royal Charter and the followings are some example: The British East India Company, Bank of England, The Law Society, Standard Chartered Bank, The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club (now The Hong Kong Jockey Club), The Royal Hong Kong Police (now the Hong Kong Police and it has now become part of the government).

 

They are not government bodies and they may or may not operate under funding from the government directly or indirectly.  My best example is the Hong Kong Jockey Club which initially funded partly by the membership fee then later developed to produce a lot of income from the betting services.  The income apart from the betting tax paid to the HK Government, and its costs for the operation, all those remain are reserved for charity purpose.  The Hong Kong Jockey Club can determine on its own how to spend its reserved part on charity and the Hong Kong Government cannot compel it to donate to any charitable organization.

[synn]

I might be one of the few who do not understand what is so great about Roon.

[Speed Racer]

27 minutes ago, synn said:

I might be one of the few who do not understand what is so great about Roon.

 

It all depends on your needs and likes.....

 

I have multiple systems I play music on and Roon's zone paradigm is brilliant. Each zone can play simultaneously and each can play different tracks or the same track in sync with one or more other zones.

 

The library system is the best I have used. It's far better and more robust than iTunes, Audirvana, or any other software I have tried.

 

The metadata system is fantastic and getting better all the time.

 

The way Roon lets you explore your music is stellar.

 

The sound quality on my Mac-based systems is as good as Audirvana which was better than anything else I tried.

 

If most of those things are not important to you, Roon probably isn't going to be compelling to you.   

[firedog]

Roon pays Tidal a fee. AFAIK, per user. Same as they do for allmusic data, etc. One of the reasons it is expensive - they are paying quite a bit of fees for all the data they integrate. 

 

The Roon guys have a very clear idea of what they want their user interface and user experience to be. So far, only Tidal has allowed them full access and use of it's database so they can integrate it seamlessly into the Roon user experience. The other streaming services aren't willing to do that, so Roon doesn't partner with them. You can think that is a good thing or not, it is Roon's choice of what they want their product to be. 

[arcman]

Roon is worth it alone just for my iTunes library imo. I subscribe to Apple Music, Tidal and Qobuzz. 

[FredericV]

 

On 10/25/2017 at 5:13 AM, Charles Hansen said:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/689938551214806

The entire group is administrated by Peter Veth (now banned from CA), who posts constantly and super-enthusiastically (shills) in many of the online forums (see Computer Audiophile and Digital Audio Review as two examples in English) whenever MQA is mentioned, yet denies any affiliation whatsoever with MQA - more lies from those in and around MQA.

 

It seems reviewer Lee Scoggins (reviewer for Part-Time Audiophile) is now also a moderator of the closed MQA group:



Also mentioned on Steve Hoffman forums:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mastering-engineer-brian-lucey-rips-mqa.711977/page-10#post-17536912

Why does a reviewer need to manage a closed facebook group? It looks like all of the MQA lobbyists are in it together.