MQA is Vaporware

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

 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.

 

I am not sure this is true.  According to Ken Forsythe, if the file exists in 24/192 then 24/192 MQA can be offered.

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I am not sure this is true.  According to Ken Forsythe, if the file exists in 24/192 then 24/192 MQA can be offered.

Which shows you are being, what was it you said...a useful what?

 

MQA upsamples anything above 96 to the original sample rate. If you get 192 it is coming form an upsampled process.

 

LOSSLESS.

 

Do your homework then come back. Maybe next time you won't get a knew corn hole the size of a comet crater torn

into your backside.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

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. 

 

Most of my friends ONLY do Tidal for the HiFi version.  The coming wave of MQA encoded files is a factor in whether they keep the service.

 

Plus, what if there are other streaming services on the horizon that we don't yet know about.

 

My guess is that some industry players will see millions of tracks in MQA and be intrigued to offer a product.  That's just a guess though.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Which shows you are being, what was it you said...a useful what?

 

MQA upsamples anything above 96 to the original sample rate. If you get 192 it is coming form an upsampled process.

 

LOSSLESS.

 

Do your homework then come back. Maybe next time you won't get a knew corn hole the size of a comet crater torn

into your backside.

 

Why such a strident response FH?  I was being civil and responding to your comments.

[Fair Hedon]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Why such a strident response FH?  I was being civil and responding to your comments.

You are the one presenting your self as a voice of authority..and smugly so...no one here is an authority, they have just done their research.

 

And to add...to get *fake* 192 (upsampled) with MQA, you need an MQA DAC..which means purchasing new hardware, which means the manufacturers win, MQA wins, and more ads get placed in publications.  Follow da money. Works every time.

[firedog]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Most of my friends ONLY do Tidal for the HiFi version.  The coming wave of MQA encoded files is a factor in whether they keep the service.

 

Plus, what if there are other streaming services on the horizon that we don't yet know about.

 

My guess is that some industry players will see millions of tracks in MQA and be intrigued to offer a product.  That's just a guess though.

Yes, I get that. But they are the tiny minority - not "the market". If all the Tidal Hifi subscriptions disappeared tomorrow it would only be important to Tidal. For the recording industry as a whole it would be a small ripple.

 

So again,  high end SQ isn't why 99% of people sign up for streaming. The labels and the streaming companies clearly understand this at this point.  They've seen that Tidal hi-end streaming isn't a runaway success.

 

So there must be some other rationale for the big investment they are making in MQA.  Again, where's the money going to come from? When you find out the answer to this, I think you'll be disappointed, and understand that MQA isn't about what you think it is.

[Shadders]

Hi Lee,

Since you have not answered my previous post - one question :

 

Q1. Do you have any bona fide engineering education such as a University degree in Electronic/Communications engineering ?

 

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[rickca]

34 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

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

Exactly.  Now ask yourself why it wouldn't happen with FLAC.  It's because there is no potential for DRM or licensing revenue with FLAC.

[crenca]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I have read all 249 pages of this discussion over the past year and it's quite clear that many here have an axe to grind.  If the evidence against MQA was so obvious, there wouldn't be literally dozens of members here responding with personal attacks.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Oh shut up....I've heard valid MQA demos on several occasions.  And you don't even understand how process standards like authentication differ from DRM. 

 

The real problem here are armchair idiots like yourself who can't respect a differing opinion.  Go back to school...

 

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

From a business or technical standpoint, DRM doesn't make any sense.

 

 

9 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..... By attacking honest journalists....When a community has a widespread reputation for having biased discussion and personal attacks, very few people with experience want to participate...

 

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

You need to put a good faith effort into asking yourself why you don't have more experience and why others have a different opinion.

 

Well well, Lee Scoggins shows his true colors.  He is upset and has taken it personally that consumers have seen through his confidence game.  He is the "researcher", he is the "journalist", and consumers who have actually done the heavy lifting of figuring out what MQA is about are "ax grinding idiots".  No doubt at this point the smarter MQA insiders are saying "with friends like Lee, who needs enemies".

 

Lee, anti-consumer industry shills such as yourself can complain about the forums all you want.  We simply are not going to follow the narrative (for MQA, or anything else) that you set out for us (for several reasons).  Yes, the forums have flaws but they are an order of magnitude (at least) better at getting to the truth than researching, reporting shills such as yourself and unfortunately most of the rest of the "audiophile press".  You keep asserting some of the Big Fat Lies of MQA (e.g. that it is not a good example of DRM, that it is "Hi Res", that consumers benefit from its proliferation, etc.).  Because you say it, does not make it so.  I know your not used to being questioned, but MQA has really exposed the ugly underbelly of the culture that you are a part of.  I know it hurts, but you have been hoodwinked and truly, you should stop digging because your deep down in the MQA hole.  Perhaps you should look to John Atkinson, who has now (finally) made an honest effort to look at the cons of MQA for the consumer and the industry in general (i.e. his recent "more on MQA" article).  Despite his errors (like you he clings to an erroneous understanding of what DRM is) he gets a few things right.  It's a start.

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

33 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

You are the one presenting your self as a voice of authority..and smugly so...no one here is an authority, they have just done their research.

 

And to add...to get *fake* 192 (upsampled) with MQA, you need an MQA DAC..which means purchasing new hardware, which means the manufacturers win, MQA wins, and more ads get placed in publications.  Follow da money. Works every time.

 

So what?  Every new format requires new hardware.  No one is forcing you to buy the DAC.  Audio is in part about selling new products.  That feeds R&D and pays salaries for families.  We get better products every year and adults and children get fed.  As a consumer we are free to choose how often we upgrade.

 

As I pointed out on another forum, DAC tech expires quickly.

[Lee Scoggins]

23 minutes ago, rickca said:

Exactly.  Now ask yourself why it wouldn't happen with FLAC.  It's because there is no potential for DRM or licensing revenue with FLAC.

 

So I think you answered your own question.  If there is no revenue potential with FLAC offering then why do it?

 

A successful new format needs to earn money.  MQA getting fees from doing work is a good thing as it attracts investors who want a rate of return on their investment.  So what you have is a healthy ecosystem of players.

 

1.  MQA gets paid at each step from encoding to selling hardware licenses on compatibility.

2.  The record label gets paid from getting paid for streaming.

3.  Hardware makers get paid from selling new DACs and ADCs.

 

All this money enables the covering of the cost of bringing out more hirez files.

 

The one thing I don't easily see is how the labels get rich from DRM?  I can readily copy the MQA files I have so I not sure how that creates revenue for the record labels.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

 

 

 

Well well, Lee Scoggins shows his true colors.  He is upset and has taken it personally that consumers have seen through his confidence game.  He is the "researcher", he is the "journalist", and consumers who have actually done the heavy lifting of figuring out what MQA is about are "ax grinding idiots".  No doubt at this point the smarter MQA insiders are saying "with friends like Lee, who needs enemies".

 

Lee, anti-consumer industry shills such as yourself can complain about the forums all you want.  We simply are not going to follow the narrative (for MQA, or anything else) that you set out for us (for several reasons).  Yes, the forums have flaws but they are an order of magnitude (at least) better at getting to the truth than researching, reporting shills such as yourself and unfortunately most of the rest of the "audiophile press".  You keep asserting some of the Big Fat Lies of MQA (e.g. that it is not a good example of DRM, that it is "Hi Res", that consumers benefit from its proliferation, etc.).  Because you say it, does not make it so.  I know your not used to being questioned, but MQA has really exposed the ugly underbelly of the culture that you are a part of.  I know it hurts, but you have been hoodwinked and truly, you should stop digging because your deep down in the MQA hole.  Perhaps you should look to John Atkinson, who has now (finally) made an honest effort to look at the cons of MQA for the consumer and the industry in general (i.e. his recent "more on MQA" article).  Despite his errors (like you he clings to an erroneous understanding of what DRM is) he gets a few things right.  It's a start.

 

 

 

Where is your evidence that I am a shill?  That's a strong and unproven accusation.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

As I pointed out on another forum, DAC tech expires quickly.

Hi,

No, my old Marantz CD63B from 1984 would still play CD's if it was around.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, Shadders said:

Hi,

No, my old Marantz CD63B from 1984 would still play CD's if it was around.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

True but the sound quality would be poor.  The point I am making is that DACs don't stay current.  I think we can agree on that.

[james45974]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

All this money enables the covering of the cost of bringing out more hirez files.

There is still no proven market for high res beyond a fringe/niche audiophile market.  It doesn't seem like there would be much money to be made there!

[Shadders]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

 

True but the sound quality would be poor.  The point I am making is that DACs don't stay current.  I think we can agree on that.

Hi Lee,

I still disagree. People pay a lot of money for a 24bit signed magnitude DAC IC, as the current offerings are not liked - this IC is nearly 20 years old, and still desired.

The Marantz was oversampled - so did sound good.

Regards,

Shadders.

[rickca]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

So what you have is a healthy ecosystem of players.

There's your next article for PTA ...  how everybody makes money from MQA.  Then we can stop this silly pretense that MQA is good for consumers.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, james45974 said:

There is still no proven market for high res beyond a fringe/niche audiophile market.  It doesn't seem like there would be much money to be made there!

 

You are supporting the point of my article here.  So let's assume the market for hirez is tiny as you suggest.  No new format focused on a tiny market would ever attract enough cash to be launched.

 

With streaming the market potential is HUGE.  Just like an ipod put thousands of tracks in our pocket, now we have a way to put an entire library with millions of tracks in our pocket.  

 

Getting millions of consumers to pay $10 a month is a big enough opportunity to do something.  The hirez MQA files are just along for the ride. 

[Lee Scoggins]

10 minutes ago, rickca said:

There's your next article for PTA ...  how everybody makes money from MQA.  Then we can stop this silly pretense that MQA is good for consumers.

 

Why are making profits and creating value for consumers mutually exclusive?  That's ill-informed from a business viewpoint.

 

No one will buy something they don't get value from.  I spend $20 on Tidal every month to get these better quality files (and also to listen to new artists when I am buying records or CDs at the store).

 

MQA creates a mastering standard so it need $$$ to pay for the development of the filters and the marketing around the value of MQA.

 

You can't blame Bob Stuart for wanting to get paid for his and his team's efforts.

[Fair Hedon]

33 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So what?  Every new format requires new hardware.  No one is forcing you to buy the DAC.  Audio is in part about selling new products.  That feeds R&D and pays salaries for families.  We get better products every year and adults and children get fed.  As a consumer we are free to choose how often we upgrade.

 

As I pointed out on another forum, DAC tech expires quickly.

More pie in the sky fabrications. 24 bit PCM DACs have been around for more than a decade+.

 

No upgrades needed because PCM is still the standard. If you are into DSD, that has been standard on most DACs,

for 5 years now, and for most it is not even of importance. Schiit Audio is living proof of that.

 

MQA is a fake format, that forces you to purchase new hardware.  Tell the real story, Mr. Honest Journalist.

[Lee Scoggins]

9 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

MQA is a fake format, that forces you to purchase new hardware. 

 

Calling it a "fake format" just shows your inherent bias.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Calling it a "fake format" just shows your inherent bias.

Hi Lee,

The 253 pages in this thread has provided evidence (fact) that many of the claims by MQA are false.

 

Assume that this is correct - then how would you describe MQA if said claims by MQA are false ?

 

False format ?. Unnecessary Format ?.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[firedog]

52 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So I think you answered your own question.  If there is no revenue potential with FLAC offering then why do it?

 

A successful new format needs to earn money.  MQA getting fees from doing work is a good thing as it attracts investors who want a rate of return on their investment.  So what you have is a healthy ecosystem of players.

 

1.  MQA gets paid at each step from encoding to selling hardware licenses on compatibility.

2.  The record label gets paid from getting paid for streaming.

3.  Hardware makers get paid from selling new DACs and ADCs.

 

All this money enables the covering of the cost of bringing out more hirez files.

 

The one thing I don't easily see is how the labels get rich from DRM?  I can readily copy the MQA files I have so I not sure how that creates revenue for the record labels.

 

I can readily copy the MQA files I have so I not sure how that creates revenue for the record labels.

Wow, did you really write that sentence? And you claim to be an experienced audio professional? DRM is not just about copying files. It's about "Management" -it's about the providers controlling  how you use and can playback the files.

Stop repeating the false idea that it doesn't have DRM inside it because you can copy it. Just a dumb, non-sequitur answer.  Not worthy of an informed audio professional. We've already given you several possible ways the DRM in MQA could be used, but you apparently prefer to remain ignorant. 

 

As far as your other points above,  2 and 3 happen without MQA. Very few people are going to buy a DAC just because of MQA, just as they haven't bought one just to get hi-res. That's certainly true for all markets except for the  small audiophile market.  ADCs sell almost exclusively to professionals, so that market also exists without MQA. 

 

Basically what your 3 points prove is that MQA is really a system set up to get MQA money at all 3 of those levels. And the record labels go along because they are going to use MQA to get more money out of the consumer. None of this really benefits the consumer, because we are going to be paying more for a small (if it exists at all) uptick in SQ; or we are going to be really screwed b/c we are going to get a downgrade in SQ from MQA.

[mansr]

26 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

You can't blame Bob Stuart for wanting to get paid for his and his team's efforts.

Nobody asked for his "help."

[crenca]

32 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Why are making profits and creating value for consumers mutually exclusive?  

 

The number of times you assert MQA offers something to regular musical consumers is the degree to which you are anti-consumer and a shill for the industry that wants a locked in, DRM format.  MQA has no value for the general consumer.  They are perfectly happy with <200 mp3/AAC.  It is all they want subjectively, and it is all their playback chains will ever be able to resolve because they will never (never ever ever) upgrade beyond cheap consumer grade playback chains.  They all have ripped their old CD (let's call 16/44 PCM entry level "hi res" for argument sake) to "low res" format intentionally, consciously.  MQA offers them NOTHING other than cons such as a locked in, proprietary DRM digital ecosystem.  You and your industry cohorts are trying to foil DRM unto them and explicitly admit you are trying to manipulate them and the market.

 

Since you claim to have followed this thread and others, you are well aware that MQA has been debunked as a SQ improvement for Audiophiles - rather than being significant upgrade it is but a mere small subjective tweak for some who like a bit of HF noise and leaky filters.  It is DRM, it is not going to clean up the recording/mixing/delivery chain, etc. etc.

 

At this point your just smamming the thread.  We are "ok" with that because it is part of the forum culture, its inherent inefficiency, etc.  Your efforts to control the narrative are in vain, but you will carry on because it is the game you $play$...