MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:19 PM, Fair Hedon said:

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.

 

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:

 

Quote

 

Why all the controversy on the internet?  MQA is a gift to audiophiles who are experienced enough to know the magic of a good high-res file.

And that, my friends, is very good news.

 

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

"MQA is a gift to audiophiles"

I'd better check my Christmas gifts for fine print demanding licence fees.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour 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:

 

 

 

So Sam, do you think having more hirez music to listen to is not a gift to audiophiles?

 

Also, these are not "love letters" to MQA.  They are my opinions on the topic.  If you disagree then that's fine by me but don't discount the time and effort I put into a five hour interview and my honest takeaways from it and talking to others.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

So Sam, do you think having more hirez music to listen to is not a gift to audiophiles?

What does that have to do with MQA?

[Norton]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

 

 

My objections to MQA relevant to audiophiles are Tom Petty is thicker sounding when it should be thinner sounding. There is thinness to many other recordings I’ve listened to in studios, my office and home. And I have preliminary model of how MQA alters the sound and placement of instruments. But I haven’t tested MQA yet because my reference albums and the six I listed earlier in this thread available in Europe aren’t available in the United States to do even preliminary testing.

 

Norton when my reference albums are available I will write about how MQA alters the sound and invite others to repeat my tests and report what they heard.

 

Thanks, an interesting account.  

 

However I expect we  will have to agree to differ on at least one thing - I've been listening to a lot of MQA in the last few days and I certainly wouldn't characterise it as thin sounding (and my amps and DAC are not known for a "warm" sound).  In contrast I'm hearing a rich "reach  out and touch" kind of  sound that I generally think is the province of good vinyl.  However, admittedly I'm only listening to the first unfold on to my (non MQA) Esoteric DAC, not the full MQA experience.

 

I thought of you when I noticed plenty of Foghat titles as I browsed the Tidal Masters spreadsheet....

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So Sam, do you think having more hirez music to listen to is not a gift to audiophiles?

 

Also, these are not "love letters" to MQA.  They are my opinions on the topic.  If you disagree then that's fine by me but don't discount the time and effort I put into a five hour interview and my honest takeaways from it and talking to others.

 

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?

[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

[rickca]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

MQA is a gift to audiophiles

It's like someone saying I can get single origin coffee cut with chicory root at no extra cost!   

[vmartell22]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

It's like someone saying I can get single origin coffee cut with chicory root at no extra cost!   

 

I think I found my new signature!  - if I do it I will properly credit, of course!

 

"Saying MQA is good It's like someone saying I can get single origin coffee cut with chicory root at no extra cost!"

 

kudos

 

v

[firedog]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

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

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”. 

[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

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, Norton said:

 

Thanks, an interesting account.  

 

However I expect we  will have to agree to differ on at least one thing - I've been listening to a lot of MQA in the last few days and I certainly wouldn't characterise it as thin sounding (and my amps and DAC are not known for a "warm" sound).  In contrast I'm hearing a rich "reach  out and touch" kind of  sound that I generally think is the province of good vinyl.  However, admittedly I'm only listening to the first unfold on to my (non MQA) Esoteric DAC, not the full MQA experience.

 

I thought of you when I noticed plenty of Foghat titles as I browsed the Tidal Masters spreadsheet....

 

So could you do me a favor? Listen to the MQA versions of Foghat "Foghat" Maybelline and Foghat "Rock and Roll Outlaws" Chateau Lafitte '59 Boogie at 3:28 forward and tell me you hear a rich "reach out and touch" kind of sound.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour 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?

 

Keep in mind this is a series of articles to explore the format.  I have not commented on the technical elements yet.

 

The elegance of the MQA business model is that it does not look at hirez availability from the audiophile perspective but instead looks at what the record labels recognize is important and that is streaming.  We may disagree but this idea around enhancing existing files for better quality in streaming is sort of, in my view, a way to piggyback hirez quality onto a way into non-audiophile's homes.  Best of all, it seems to have worked as the three big labels and the independent community have signed up for the whole catalog.  

 

Also, there are legitimate bandwidth concerns at scale so I would differ with you there.  

 

And keep in mind that many mastering engineers are unhappy as the MQA approach limits the amount of times they can get paid to release in different formats.

 

This first article was positive because I am genuinely excited about getting millions more tracks in hirez.

 

As more music becomes available, we will see more hardware providers jump in.  As more hardware can do MQA, we will see more consumer interest and/or exploration.

 

With all of the major labels on board, it seems likely that MQA is becoming a standard whether we have different technical opinions or not.   In my view, getting MQA done is a simpler path to getting hirez released than the audiophile-centric way of limited releases on download sites and formats like SACD/DVD-Audio that were great but lacked traction and title availability.

[Lee Scoggins]

And speaking of hardware support, Astell & Kern has jumped in.

 

IRIVER To Add MQA Support For Line Of Audio

Streaming Devices

MQA Support Will Be Added To Streaming Devices Starting With ACTIVO, Then Added To Other Streaming And Audio Devices 

 

Las Vegas, NV – IRIVER, the parent company of Astell&Kern, the global leader in high-resolution portable audio players, announces support for MQA decoding and playback will be added to the ACTIVO portable high-resolution audio player in January 2018.

 

MQA’s award-winning technology captures and reproduces the sound of the original studio master in a file that’s small enough to stream and download easily.  With the TIDAL Masters integration, users can instantly stream thousands of MQA tracks on their players.

 

James Lee, CEO of IRIVER said, “IRIVER is committed to bringing the latest innovation and technology to consumers.  We are happy to add MQA support to the new ACTIVO audio player, powered by Astell&Kern’s new TERATON sound solution.  We will continue to add MQA support to other streaming and audio devices in the future.”

 

Mike Jbara, CEO of MQA, commented, “It’s exciting that MQA’s technology will be integrated into IRIVER devices.  IRIVER’s addition to the list of MQA partners is a milestone in the creation of an environment where all consumers can easily enjoy high quality audio.”

 

The ACTIVO CT10 is the first high-resolution audio player from groovers Japan and features the new TERATON sound module by Astell&Kern, allowing high resolution audio playback up to 24bit, 192 kHz high resolution PCM audio and up to double-rate DSD (converted to PCM).  The ACTIVO CT10 also supports music streaming services including TIDAL and

groovers Japan.

 

The ACTIVO CT10 will be displayed in the Astell&ASPR booth during CES2018, Central Hall, booth # 18218.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour 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”. 

 

The reality is that I talked to a number of people working professionally with MQA in addition to Ken who I interviewed.  The article is based on my view based on what I heard from the entire group, not just the MQA team.

[tmtomh]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The reality is that I talked to a number of people working professionally with MQA in addition to Ken who I interviewed.  The article is based on my view based on what I heard from the entire group, not just the MQA team.

 

You are making the same claims over at the Hoffman forums - though I'd note that over there you appear to be sticking to your erroneous technical claims more than you are here, I presume because you've been faced with a more technically literate set of respondents here.

 

The issue is not whether the people you spoke to said certain things. The issue is with the apparent understanding - or lack thereof - of MQA's sonic characteristics that you (not them) have. There are dozens, perhaps 100s of pages of (admittedly dense) discussion on this site that put the lie to the blithe claims for MQA's lossless nature, and add much needed complexity and qualifications to the claim that it can correct or compensate for recording filters and such.

[Shadders]

35 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Keep in mind this is a series of articles to explore the format.  I have not commented on the technical elements yet.

 

The elegance of the MQA business model is that it does not look at hirez availability from the audiophile perspective but instead looks at what the record labels recognize is important and that is streaming.  We may disagree but this idea around enhancing existing files for better quality in streaming is sort of, in my view, a way to piggyback hirez quality onto a way into non-audiophile's homes.  Best of all, it seems to have worked as the three big labels and the independent community have signed up for the whole catalog.  

 

Also, there are legitimate bandwidth concerns at scale so I would differ with you there.  

 

And keep in mind that many mastering engineers are unhappy as the MQA approach limits the amount of times they can get paid to release in different formats.

 

This first article was positive because I am genuinely excited about getting millions more tracks in hirez.

 

As more music becomes available, we will see more hardware providers jump in.  As more hardware can do MQA, we will see more consumer interest and/or exploration.

 

With all of the major labels on board, it seems likely that MQA is becoming a standard whether we have different technical opinions or not.   In my view, getting MQA done is a simpler path to getting hirez released than the audiophile-centric way of limited releases on download sites and formats like SACD/DVD-Audio that were great but lacked traction and title availability.

Hi,

What if the claims by MQA are not true, and MQA is sham hiding behind an NDA, relying upon the inability of the "educated" press to determine this.

 

Some of the claims have been disproved, by experts posting on this site.

 

If the claim that temporal blur (dispersion) is corrected by MQA, is subsequently disproved by evidence or an academic expert in audio (University Professor), would you denounce MQA as a scam ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Shadders said:

What if the claims by MQA are not true, and MQA is sham hiding behind an NDA, relying upon the inability of the "educated" press to determine this.

I am probably the person who knows the most about technical aspects of MQA and is allowed to talk about them, having never agreed to so much as a firmware EULA, let alone signed any NDAs. To date, exactly one journalist has asked for my input.

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So Sam, do you think having more hirez music to listen to is not a gift to audiophiles?

 

Also, these are not "love letters" to MQA.  They are my opinions on the topic.  If you disagree then that's fine by me but don't discount the time and effort I put into a five hour interview and my honest takeaways from it and talking to others.

Hi Lee

 

As I said in an earlier post, your reputation precedes you.  In my experience in reading your posts over at Hoffman and then later at whatever audiophile site you post in now, you never met a vendor you didn't (metaphorically speaking) French kiss with copious amounts of tongue.  You're absolutely anything but neutral, and seem to treasure your relationships with vendors (those who you refer to by first name only, like "Bob") far, far more than giving consumers any kind of objective information.

 

Shunyata, Black Cat, and Audioquest are three vendors you enthusiastically shilled for and I think that what you did over at the Hoffman forum over the years meets the definition of shilling.  And I don't see the service you're currently providing to MQA to be much different.

 

Your MQA "opinions" are predictable, and I don't think there's any doubt at all that all of your MQA "articles" (or what ever you call them to try to construct some facade of objectivity) will be precisely fawning love letters to Bob Stuart's (or as you call him, "Bob") MQA.  I already know what your subsequent "articles" on MQA are going to say, and you haven't even written them yet.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours 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”. 

 

Some of us are familiar with his "work" over at the Hoffman forum over the years and I think "shill" is a fair characterization.  YMMV of course.

[Lee Scoggins]

52 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

What if the claims by MQA are not true, and MQA is sham hiding behind an NDA, relying upon the inability of the "educated" press to determine this.

 

Some of the claims have been disproved, by experts posting on this site.

 

If the claim that temporal blur (dispersion) is corrected by MQA, is subsequently disproved by evidence or an academic expert in audio (University Professor), would you denounce MQA as a scam ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

If the claims made by MQA are proven false then I will certainly share that information.  My goal is to do things correctly.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

If the claims made by MQA are proven false then I will certainly share that information.

Sorry, you're late to that party.

[Lee Scoggins]

17 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Hi Lee

 

As I said in an earlier post, your reputation precedes you.  In my experience in reading your posts over at Hoffman and then later at whatever audiophile site you post in now, you never met a vendor you didn't (metaphorically speaking) French kiss with copious amounts of tongue.  You're absolutely anything but neutral, and seem to treasure your relationships with vendors (those who you refer to by first name only, like "Bob") far, far more than giving consumers any kind of objective information.

 

Shunyata, Black Cat, and Audioquest are three vendors you enthusiastically shilled for and I think that what you did over at the Hoffman forum over the years meets the definition of shilling.  And I don't see the service you're currently providing to MQA to be much different.

 

Your MQA "opinions" are predictable, and I don't think there's any doubt at all that all of your MQA "articles" (or what ever you call them to try to construct some facade of objectivity) will be precisely fawning love letters to Bob Stuart's (or as you call him, "Bob") MQA.  I already know what your subsequent "articles" on MQA are going to say, and you haven't even written them yet.

 

 

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.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, 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.

 

Yeah, where's one of "Steve's" gorts when you need one? 

 

Your posting history at Hoffman speaks for itself.  The word, "shill" has a meaning and I believe your posting history at Hoffman warrants that word.