MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

Since they refuse to go into detail on exactly what they mean using standard engineering terms, proving them wrong is impossible.

[Fair Hedon]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

One thing you clearly are is a useful idiot.  You are being manipulated by bad mastering engineers like Brian Lucey who stand to lose money from the MQA approach.  By attacking honest journalists, you are creating large amounts of bad information that obscure the good news of more hirez music.  As a result many readers of the CA community will be uninformed about MQA and may miss the advantage of large catalogs of music.

 

Perhaps even worse, your constant attacks on those with a different opinion is scaring away good people from even wanting to participate on the board thereby lowering the quality of good discussion and exploration.

 

When a community has a widespread reputation for having biased discussion and personal attacks, very few people with experience want to participate. And that is what has happened here.

You clearly show a total lack of understanding of how the business works.

 

Brian Lucey would stand to GAIN financially by embracing MQA whole-heartedly.  By becoming an independent MQA encoding station, he would MAKE MORE MONEY. 

 

But unlike you, he has integrity.

 

Your last few posts have clearly demonstrated that you are in no way a journalist, but an industry hanger on who wants access.I think everybody here knew you could only keep it together for so long pretending to be neutral, and an "honest journalist" (thanks for the laugh!). Oh well, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Now smile!

[Shadders]

4 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Think linear phase. Still the standard in production ADCs and SRCs.

Hi Fokus,

OK - so, are you stating that there is no non-linearity in the system at all ?.

Dispersion is not only caused by filters, but is also due to non linearity.

MQA are not specifically stating that the ADC and SRC's are the only issue. The filters used may be other types in the recording chain.

This is my point - MQA will not be able to correct dispersion, they will never know which filter has been used in what part of the chain in the recording/mixing/mastering, and they also introduce dispersion in their own QMF filters (however small).

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

Since they refuse to go into detail on exactly what they mean using standard engineering terms, proving them wrong is impossible.

Hi mansr,

If we can cover all aspects of engineering with regards to MQA, then all that is left is fabrication by MQA, and this can then be exposed.

It is hard work, as someone can continue to claim something, evade the issue, but this will then eventually, expose them for what they are.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Lee Scoggins]

9 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

You clearly show a total lack of understanding of how the business works.

 

Brian Lucey would stand to GAIN financially by embracing MQA whole-heartedly.  By becoming an independent MQA encoding station, he would MAKE MORE MONEY. 

 

But unlike you, he has integrity.

 

Your last few posts have clearly demonstrated that you are in no way a journalist, but an industry hanger on who wants access.I think everybody here knew you could only keep it together for so long pretending to be neutral, and an "honest journalist" (thanks for the laugh!). Oh well, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Now smile!

 

Some observations:

 

1. The labels purchased encoding devices so I don't think there is any money to be made by opening up an encoding station.

 

2. Mastering engineers get paid multiple times when they master for different formats. If there is an MQA encoding then the number of times they can get paid goes down (at least in digital) to one time.

 

3. The reason I say that Brian Lucey is a bad engineer is due to poor sound quality.  Sure, Brian has more credits than me on Allmusic but that doesn't speak to the quality of his work.  Now maybe we could be generous and right some of this off to what his clients or label wanted.

[Fokus]

11 minutes ago, Shadders said:

MQA are not specifically stating that the ADC and SRC's are the only issue. The filters used may be other types in the recording chain.

 

Reading between the lines, ADC and DAC are what they are after. Compensating for anything else is simply not feasible, nor actually desireable. Although I have a feeling that MQA would not object to people thinking they are trying to compensate for everything, which indeed has happened on overheated forums  ;-)

 

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Telling people to shut up and calling them idiots isn’t allowed here at CA. 

 

If if you have evidence that someone is in fact an idiot, please put that forth and address the subject matter. 

 

Fair enough Chris, I was just frustrated by the comment that I would be persuaded by a good first impression.

 

We should also be consistent and call out personal attacks such as "shill", "industry sycophant" and the like as well if we are to have a respectful debate here.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

 Reposting verbatim a  pro MQA press release doesn't help convince your critics that you are objective or critical.....

 

The press release is definitely fair game to post as we are discussing herein the likelihood that MQA gets taken up.  Having an ecosystem of hardware vendors is a necessary ingredient to that. And the press release was top of mind as they just sent out the email an hour or so before.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Fair enough Chris, I was just frustrated by the comment that I would be persuaded by a good first impression.

 

We should also be consistent and call out personal attacks such as "shill", "industry sycophant" and the like as well if we are to have a respectful debate here.

The rules apply to everyone equally.

 

If someone considers you a shill, they must present some evidence for what they believe. Same as calling someone an idiot. 

[Lee Scoggins]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

And you still haven't given any kind of substantial answer to your claim that MQA is needed to get more hi-res released to streaming. 

MQA isn't necessary for streaming hi-res. All those files being released for streaming as MQA could be released not in MQA. The only reason it is happening this way is that the labels are using  MQA as  the  excuse for the releases. 

Their real goal is to keep us from ever having access to the actual master files, and to be able to control our use of the files through the DRM built into MQA. Just wait till MQA becomes ubiquitous. Other hi-res formats will disappear, and suddenly prices for "hi-res" streaming will go up. 

 

I don't believe DRM is playing the influencing factor here.   

 

If labels are so concerned access to the master files then why have they put so much 24/96 files out for sale on HDTracks and similar sites?

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The rules apply to everyone equally.

 

If someone considers you a shill, they must present some evidence for what they believe. Same as calling someone an idiot. 

 

That seems totally fair to me.  And again apologies for calling someone an idiot, I don't normally do that.

 

And for the record, I don't get paid by MQA or any other vendor.  I make my money on my day job and get paid per article or show from PTA.

[Fair Hedon]

14 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Some observations:

 

1. The labels purchased encoding devices so I don't think there is any money to be made by opening up an encoding station.

 

2. Mastering engineers get paid multiple times when they master for different formats. If there is an MQA encoding then the number of times they can get paid goes down (at least in digital) to one time.

 

3. The reason I say that Brian Lucey is a bad engineer is due to poor sound quality.  Sure, Brian has more credits than me on Allmusic but that doesn't speak to the quality of his work.  Now maybe we could be generous and right some of this off to what his clients or label wanted.

Totally and utterly incorrect.  Ask Bob Ludwig why he wants to be an MQA encoding studio. $$$$.

 

Not only are you not a journalist, but you are spreading information with no factual basis, to add salt to the wounds.

 

To top it off, you are doing what all hacks do, trying to pass off your OPINION as a fact. Amateur hour.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

 

 

Please don't appeal to authority, it's below both of us. And please don't call what you're doing journalism, it's an insult to the profession.

 

As for being a useful idiot, and if you want to insist on appeal to authority, I'll proudly be Bruno Putzeys and John Siau's useful idiot. I also tend to think that there's more competence, integrity, and knowledge of the matter at hand in either Anton Schlesinger's or Christoph Engemann's pinky nails than in your entire body, but that's just an opinion based on my reading of your many posts.

 

I think your problem isn't that the CA community is uninformed about MQA. It's that the CA community is very well informed about MQA, in a way that you happen to disagree with. Since you fancy yourself a journalist now, I'd wager the word you were looking for was "misinformed", something I'd therefore be led to believe you're trying to "correct". Now I can only wonder why.

 

 

I know John Siau and he is very good guy.  I think Benchmark is considering MQA however so their views on the encoding seem to be changing.  Bruno Putzeys and I have talked briefly at shows around his N-Core technology but I respect his opinion as well.  But I have to weight the varying evidence of different experts and make an informed decision as best I can.

 

I am reviewing some Benchmark gear this month so I have access to John.  I will try to talk to Bruno and get his concerns as well.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The rules apply to everyone equally.

 

If someone considers you a shill, they must present some evidence for what they believe. Same as calling someone an idiot. 

 

Ok.  This URL is somewhat infamous:

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/search/45345792/?q=shunyata&o=relevance&c[node]=5&c[user][0]=964

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I know John Siau and he is very good guy.  I think Benchmark is considering MQA however so their views on the encoding seem to be changing.  Bruno Putzeys and I have talked briefly at shows around his N-Core technology but I respect his opinion as well.  But I have to weight the varying evidence of different experts and make an informed decision as best I can.

"But I have to weight the varying evidence of different experts and make an informed decision as best I can."

 

Please. Spare us.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

Yes, he seems incapable of thinking about these aspects and has ignored all attempts to get him to engage on this level. 

As always, "follow the money". When you do it is obvious that his rose colored view can't be the correct one. 

 

The idea that the availabilty of all  those "hi-res" MQA downloads will get the masses to pay premium prices for streaming them is ridiculous. If that were true, Tidal would have seen millions of users migrate to it's "hi-fi" tier from other services over the past couple of years, and especially since they began streaming MQA.

It hasn't happened, Lee. Sort of punches a hole in you whole theory about what MQA is and why the labels are promoting it.

 

I think you misunderstand the article a bit but you may be hitting on a point I should clarify.  I am not saying that millions of consumers will sign up for Tidal Hifi.  For most consumers, $20 a month is too much.

 

What I am suggesting is that the possibility of selling millions of consumers a $10 a month subscription to a streaming service is what is driving label interest deep enough that they would sign the MQA contract which obligates them to spend tons of money encoding their back catalog.

 

The value to the audiophile consumer is that the MQA encoding creates a hirez file that many of us here on CA would be willing to buy for $15-20 a month.

 

I have not analyzed the pricing and my gut tells me that even $20 a month is a bit much...meaning they could get more volume if they cut the price to $15.  But I don't have first-hand knowledge of the overhead costs on streaming so it is difficult to estimate if there is enough of a return at $15.

[Lee Scoggins]

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Ok.  This URL is somewhat infamous:

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/search/45345792/?q=shunyata&o=relevance&c[node]=5&c[user][0]=964

 

 

 

Hmm, so my enthusiasm for a solid vendor is evidence of shilling?

 

When did I get paid by Shunyata?  I don't recall seeing any money.

 

Could it be that I am just recommending them because they offer up some nice evidence in their comparison videos?  Could it be that the PS8 is a high value product and many on Hoffman are looking for a line conditioner under $1K?

 

Also note the timeline.  Many of my recommendations were before I started writing and knew anyone at the company.

[opus101]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

  I will try to talk to Bruno and get his concerns as well.

 

Bruno's already made his view clear on Facebook, and his post has been copied around. For example here on Gearslutz (3rd post down) : https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1182692-mqa-practicalities-print.html

 

Snippet from Bruno, 'these folk' are MQA :

 

These folk are trying to have their cake and eat it. Either aliasing doesn't matter because there is no signal in the transition band and then the precise shape of the transition band doesn't matter either (ie the ring tails have no conceivable manifestation) or the absence of ring tails is critical because there is signal in that region and then the aliasing will result in audible components that fly in the face of MQA's transparency claims.

[firedog]

13 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I don't believe DRM is playing the influencing factor here.   

 

If labels are so concerned access to the master files then why have they put so much 24/96 files out for sale on HDTracks and similar sites?

Sort of a funny answer coming from you. Your article talks about how there hasn't been much put out, but now because of MQA it is a flood...

But again, you still haven't made any case on the distribution/streaming side why MQA is necessary. It doesn't give us smaller files than we can get without it.  And if DRM has nothing to do with it, what is the economic rationale for it, especially from the side of the labels? 

Your "belief" isn't important. Give some analysis and conclusion based on reality.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Hmm, so my enthusiasm for a solid vendor is evidence of shilling?

 

When did I get paid by Shunyata?  I don't recall seeing any money.

 

Could it be that I am just recommending them because they offer up some nice evidence in their comparison videos?  Could it be that the PS8 is a high value product and many on Hoffman are looking for a line conditioner under $1K?

 

Also note the timeline.  Many of my recommendations were before I started writing and knew anyone at the company.

 

So, for the record, have you ever gotten any Shunyata products for free or at a discount?

 

And please, don't see this an an opportunity to shill for Shunyata here.

[Lee Scoggins]

5 hours ago, Norton said:

 

I suspect the fact that we are currently discussing MQA is incidental, could just as well be about vinyl.

 

Fundamentally this is "objective, v. "subjective".  You raise technical objections about MQA, I come  back with the fact that my DAC tells me it's receiving a MQA stream at 96kHz which in turn sounds to me every bit as good, if not better,  than my 24/96 non-MQA download copy.

 

Bearing in mind that it is most likely to be used in streaming services, concerns about DRM specific to MQA seem at best to be "deckchair rearrangement"

 

I think in many ways, I am where Norton is on all this.  I hear the benefits of MQA encoding and it sounds like 24/96 playback to me.  I am having a hard time seeing the downside of having more hirez files available.

 

What if we suppose that MQA is slightly lossy...

 

Do we care if we get a hirez version of millions of tracks?

 

Getting a new sonic standard off the ground is incredibly hard to do given that many in the industry don't, oddly enough, value sound quality.  MQA seems to have got all the big labels on board.

 

I doubt we could replicate that through other formats, such as FLAC, etc.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So, for the record, have you ever gotten any Shunyata products for free or at a discount?

 

And please, don't see this an an opportunity to shill for Shunyata here.

 

No, I have not gotten anything free.  The stuff I own was bought at either full price or for my Venom power cords a slight discount from MusicDirect.  Same deal other MusicDirect customers were getting at the time.

 

I have a Shunyata Denali 6000 Tower on reviewer loan for a few months (review underway) and some Delta cables incoming for a second review in a few months, all on loan.

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think in many ways, I am where Norton is on all this.  I hear the benefits of MQA encoding and it sounds like 24/96 playback to me.  I am having a hard time seeing the downside of having more hirez files available.

 

What if we suppose that MQA is slightly lossy...

 

Do we care if we get a hirez version of millions of tracks?

 

Getting a new sonic standard off the ground is incredibly hard to do given that many in the industry don't, oddly enough, value sound quality.  MQA seems to have got all the big labels on board.

 

I doubt we could replicate that through other formats, such as FLAC, etc.

 Your language is clearly intended to soften clear negatives of MQA.... "slightly lossy'?

 

"sounds like 24/96 playback to me"....

 

The fact that MQA can not deliver sample rates above 96, and that it throw out bits should be enough for

anyone to know this is garbage technology.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sort of a funny answer coming from you. Your article talks about how there hasn't been much put out, but now because of MQA it is a flood...

But again, you still haven't made any case on the distribution/streaming side why MQA is necessary. It doesn't give us smaller files than we can get without it.  And if DRM has nothing to do with it, what is the economic rationale for it, especially from the side of the labels? 

Your "belief" isn't important. Give some analysis and conclusion based on reality.

 

That's not an accurate characterization of what the article says.  I make a point about DVD-Audio and SACD and other hirez formats remaining a niche.  Then I make a point about the rapid growth of MQA files on Tidal.

 

The main theme of this article is that MQA has been successful with a format that has already gotten the majors on board so we will see literally millions of hirez tracks.

 

You may not like the MQA approach and wish we were getting millions of FLAC files (I wouldn't mind that either) but at least the music is coming out.

[firedog]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

What I am suggesting is that the possibility of selling millions of consumers a $10 a month subscription to a streaming service is what is driving label interest deep enough that they would sign the MQA contract which obligates them to spend tons of money encoding their back catalog.

 

The value to the audiophile consumer is that the MQA encoding creates a hirez file that many of us here on CA would be willing to buy for $15-20 a month.

 

I don't understand why MQA is relevant to getting people to sign up to streaming. People mostly sign up to streaming for convenience, all time everywhere access to music, and the big catalog. Very few people (as evidenced by Tidal) seem to be interested in anything beyond mp3, especially if it costs them a few bucks more than mp3.  

 

None of my well heeled friends with very good stereo systems see any reason to pay for a stream at greater than 320K. They just don't see the value, even thought the cost is small. When I tell them about Tidal hi-fi, they shrug and ask why they should switch to it from Spotify Premium. 

Audiophiles who are interested have bought into Tidal Hifi regardless of MQA. So MQA is irrelevant in getting them to sign up.  The tens of millions aren't coming. 

 

And again, why can't the Tidal just stream standard hi-res? It's been shown that the file size advantage of MQA is a myth, especially as it is actually 15-17 bit depth, and all the high res above 96k resolution is downsampled when the MQA folded file is made, so the real max resolution of an MQA file is 96 (not 176, 192, or above). And that's without taking into account that MQA throws away some of the high resolution frequencies. For comparable bit depth and resolution, MQA doesn't save file size.