MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 You and your industry cohorts are trying to foil

 

I think you mean, "foist".

[crenca]

Also, @Lee Scoggins position/argument - let's call it what it is, his particular angle in the confidence game - is that there is a price to be payed for manipulating the general musical market into what he calls "hi res" (even though MQA is not hi res).  This price is a closed, IP protected, DRM format is the standard (all other formats will be merely niche players).  In an important sense, he agrees with Robert Harley at TAS.  

 

Even if you take a only an industry centric view as he does this is not at all even likely, let alone somehow necessary or good.  Yes, it does check a few boxes in the labels corp boardrooms but nowhere else.  

 

What Lee does is not "journalism" in any sense of the term - it is pure industry wonking and propaganda for a particular view...heck, it is not even that, it is just trade self talk and promotion of one particular product...

[tmtomh]

1 hour 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 agree with your 3-item list as a factual statement about MQA's business model: That does indeed appear to be the MQA business model.

 

And if it works, it's certainly good for MQA - it's one way a new format can get into the market. But what you've failed to demonstrate is how MQA is good for the consumers who sit at the end of this money chain, ultimately footing the bill. And there is where we run headlong into your sonic-benefit claims, which are oversimplified or in some cases flat-out false. @mansr perhaps put it most succinctly: no one asked for Meridian's "help" here: For consumers, MQA is a solution in search of a problem.

 

Relatedly, this MQA revenue chain contributes to "covering the cost of bringing out more hirez files" only if by "hirez files" you mean files with an effective resolution of 14-17 bits and 48kHz sample rates. And that's the problem: You've admitted - in fact, actively argued - that the hi-res aspect of MQA is secondary, riding along in the same files used for streaming services whose subscribers (the vast majority anyway) have no interest in hi-res. So for audiophiles interested in hi-res, MQA offers "more hi-res music" but at the cost of reducing the bit depth and sample rate of the high-res music.

 

And let's not forget that so far, MQA hi-res files cost the same as conventional PCM high-res files. So labels could continue letting HDTracks and others sell PCM files at the same prices they currently do, with no need for MQA. The high-res ecosystem doesn't need MQA.

 

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

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

Regards,

Shadders.

 

1 hour ago, 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.

 

Again, Lee, whenever you get into technological/sonic claims, you make baseless assertions that betray a level of ignorance surprising for someone with an audiophile blog.

Shadders' old Marantz unit is a classic, considered a particularly nice implementation of the old, classic Philips TD1541 ladder DAC chip. Reasonable people can differ in their preferences of course - but "the sound quality would be poor" is an assertion without basis. Your claim that "DAC tech expires quickly" is false as a factual technology claim. It's true only as a business aspiration. And it's precisely your tendency to make business-model statements that you claim are tech facts, which leads some here (though not me, I stress) to call you a shill. 

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours 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.

 

 

It is stunning to note there is a group of maybe individuals in the "press"...Atkinson, Austin, Harley, Darko, Scoggins etc that amazingly all hear the magic of MQA and are blind to it;s obvious flaws.

 

Curious, now? And is not not more curious that ALL pro MQA shills have something to gain economically? Create a market, collect increased ad revenue. It is not complicated.

 

NO other group of people seem to duplicate the magical results these people have.

 

Same thing for Bob Ludwig, who was pro DSD, Multi Channel, SACD, Mastered For iTunes and would be for mastering on a micro cassette if it made him money, especially at his average of $5000 per album fee.

 

At this point, if Lee had any sense of shame, he would just go off with his tail between his legs. 

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I agree with your 3-item list as a factual statement about MQA's business model: That does indeed appear to be the MQA business model.

 

And if it works, it's certainly good for MQA - it's one way a new format can get into the market. But what you've failed to demonstrate is how MQA is good for the consumers who sit at the end of this money chain, ultimately footing the bill. And there is where we run headlong into your sonic-benefit claims, which are oversimplified or in some cases flat-out false. @mansr perhaps put it most succinctly: no one asked for Meridian's "help" here: For consumers, MQA is a solution in search of a problem.

 

Relatedly, this MQA revenue chain contributes to "covering the cost of bringing out more hirez files" only if by "hirez files" you mean files with an effective resolution of 14-17 bits and 48kHz sample rates. And that's the problem: You've admitted - in fact, actively argued - that the hi-res aspect of MQA is secondary, riding along in the same files used for streaming services whose subscribers (the vast majority anyway) have no interest in hi-res. So for audiophiles interested in hi-res, MQA offers "more hi-res music" but at the cost of reducing the bit depth and sample rate of the high-res music.

 

And let's not forget that so far, MQA hi-res files cost the same as conventional PCM high-res files. So labels could continue letting HDTracks and others sell PCM files at the same prices they currently do, with no need for MQA. The high-res ecosystem doesn't need MQA.

 

 

 

Again, Lee, whenever you get into technological/sonic claims, you make baseless assertions that betray a level of ignorance surprising for someone with an audiophile blog.

Shadders' old Marantz unit is a classic, considered a particularly nice implementation of the old, classic Philips TD1541 ladder DAC chip. Reasonable people can differ in their preferences of course - but "the sound quality would be poor" is an assertion without basis. Your claim that "DAC tech expires quickly" is false as a factual technology claim. It's true as a business aspiration, but even there, DACs have a much longer shelf life than, say, computers or smartphones, because DACs don't rely on constantly evolving complex operating systems and apps: They rely more on consumer-owned hardware, and on long-standing open standards (like PCM).

 

Lastly, your tendency to say things like this - "DAC tech expires quickly" - which are business-model claims that you claim to be technological facts, is why some here (though not me, I stress) are calling you a shill. It sounds like PR because it's what PR people write, even if you personally a're not writing it with that intention. 

 

I am still exploring the technical aspects but based on what I know now, the 48khz sampling rate statements is not accurate.

 

As for Shadders' 1984 CD player technology, I am aware of some of the advantages of that ladder chip but it really doesn't compete with more modern DACs and CD players.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

It is stunning to note there is a group of maybe individuals in the "press"...Atkinson, Austin, Harley, Darko, Scoggins etc that amazingly all hear the magic of MQA and are blind to it;s obvious flaws.

 

Curious, now? And is not not more curious that ALL pro MQA shills have something to gain economically? Create a market,

collect increased ad revenue. It is not complicated.

 

Same thing for Bob Ludwig, who was pro DSD, Multi Channel, SACD, Mastered For iTunes and would be for mastering

on a micro cassette if it made him money, especially at his average of $5000 per album fee.

 

At this point, if Lee had any sense of shame, he would just go off with his tail between his legs. 

 

I am good company with those audio writers, all good people. 

 

But your argument that we are all "pro MQA shills" doesn't make sense.  If MQA creates a market, none of the writers you cite make any money.  None of us get paid by MQA or own shares in MQA.

 

Maybe we are just reporting what we find because we like the sound.

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I am good company with those audio writers, all good people. 

 

But your argument that we are all "pro MQA shills" doesn't make sense.  If MQA creates a market, none of the writers you cite make any money.  None of us get paid by MQA or own shares in MQA.

 

Maybe we are just reporting what we find because we like the sound.

You continue to insult our intelligence. When MQA partners place ads with webzines and magazines, it provides them with revenue. Revenue they can continue to pay their writers with.

 

And in turn it provides manufacturers incentive to "upgrade" their products which greases the wheel.

 

Please. Stop.

[Lee Scoggins]

15 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Lastly, your tendency to say things like this - "DAC tech expires quickly" - which are business-model claims that you claim to be technological facts, is why some here (though not me, I stress) are calling you a shill. It sounds like PR because it's what PR people write, even if you personally a're not writing it with that intention. 

 

I say this because in my own personal experience DACs do expire quickly.  Things just keep getting better.  Look at Benchmark's DACs (I own three of them) and you will see their measurements indicate significant improvements in lower noise and other metrics as you move from the DAC1 to DAC2 to DAC3.

 

At the end of the day, DACs are software filters and algorithms and there has been much advancement on those.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

You continue to insult our intelligence. When MQA partners place ads with webzines and magazines, it provides them with revenue. Revenue they can continue to pay their writers with.

 

And in turn it provides manufacturers incentive to "upgrade" their products which greases the wheel.

 

Please. Stop.

 

Sure, magazines make money from advertising.  But that is standard operating procedure.  That is not evidence of being a "shill".

[Fair Hedon]

"...DACs do expire quickly."

 

No they don't.

[Fair Hedon]

And speaking of insulting the intelligence..it is one thing to swallow Atkinson's, Lavorgna, and Austin's coverage of MQA, but Reichert and Fremer's write ups were perhaps the most embarrassing episodes in the history of print audio.

 

At least the others have an understanding of computer audio but Reichert ("Who wouldn't want MQA?") and Fremer ("If MQA was around 30 years ago I would have been all in on digital)" were beyond shameful.

 

Kalman Rubinson the same, and too bad, because he seems like a very nice man. And a scientist to boot.....

[tmtomh]

18 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I am still exploring the technical aspects but based on what I know now, the 48khz sampling rate statements is not accurate.

 

As for Shadders' 1984 CD player technology, I am aware of some of the advantages of that ladder chip but it really doesn't compete with more modern DACs and CD players.

 

The 48kHz sampling rate is, to the best of my knowledge, the maximum lossless rate - everything else is "unfolded," which as already discussed here, is not lossless.

 

As for the old CD player/DAC issue, you can repeat variants of your assertion as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it any truer.

[Samuel T Cogley]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sure, magazines make money from advertising.  But that is standard operating procedure.  That is not evidence of being a "shill".

 

How about the shameless use of MQA's marketing material to start off your "article"?

 

[tmtomh]

14 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I say this because in my own personal experience DACs do expire quickly.  Things just keep getting better.  Look at Benchmark's DACs (I own three of them) and you will see their measurements indicate significant improvements in lower noise and other metrics as you move from the DAC1 to DAC2 to DAC3.

 

At the end of the day, DACs are software filters and algorithms and there has been much advancement on those.

 

Again, oversimplified. Some people prefer the sound of a ladder DAC to a Delta-Sigma DAC. And some people prefer different sound profiles - a Wolfson vs an ESS Sabre, just to pick one example. 

 

If your metric is going to be measurements, then - again - you're casting stones in a glass house because as mansr and archimago have shown, the MQA codec process does not measure as well as PCM and DSD processes. 

 

So you can take the side of sonic perception, or you can take the side of better measurements - but you can't selectively switch sides when it suits you in a disagreement.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

How about the shameless use of MQA's marketing material to start off your "article"?

 

 

Yea, but as he will soon argue, blameless

 

These guys are so incestuously wrapped up in the industries perspective, needs, concerns, and ideas they actually believe their own rationalizations about being "journalists" and the like...  

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

How about the shameless use of MQA's marketing material to start off your "article"?

 

 

That's something our editor Rafe added.  I took a picture of Ken and Alan for the first article.

[Fair Hedon]

4 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

The 48kHz sampling rate is, to the best of my knowledge, the maximum lossless rate - everything else is "unfolded," which as already discussed here, is not lossless.

 

As for the old CD player/DAC issue, you can repeat variants of your assertion as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it any truer.

Someone should correct me if I am wrong, but I understand 48 is the maximum frequency MQA is capable of, hence a 96 Khz sample rate.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, Fair Hedon said:

Someone should correct me if I am wrong, but I understand 48 is the maximum frequency MQA is capable of, hence a 96 Khz sample rate.

 

Not correct.  It can unfold with an MQA DAC up to 24/192.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's something our editor Rafe added.  I took a picture of Ken and Alan for the first article.

 

Convenient dodge there.  You don't seem particularly concerned about the possible perception of an incestuous relationship between your site and MQA.

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Not correct.  It can unfold with an MQA DAC up to 24/192.

As I pointed out, which you ignored, anything above 96 Khz is UPSAMPLED BY THE DAC.

[tmtomh]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Not correct.  It can unfold with an MQA DAC up to 24/192.

 

14 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

As I pointed out, which you ignored, anything above 96 Khz is UPSAMPLED BY THE DAC.

 

Yes, Fair Hedon - there's an aspect of this that Lee seems not to grasp.

[Dr Tone]

MQA/Bob isn't stupid, calling it a second unfold is brilliant it's the only way to sell it to audiophiles, if they said first unfold second upsample it would be blatantly obvious it was lossless and steer the fools away.

 

If you say it enough the magazine reviewers will believe it.

[Fair Hedon]

3 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

MQA/Bob isn't stupid, calling it a second unfold is brilliant it's the only way to sell it to audiophiles, if they said first unfold second upsample it would be blatantly obvious it was lossless and steer the fools away.

 

If you say it enough the magazine reviewers will believe it.

No, they don't believe. They regurgitate it.

[Shadders]

32 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

 

Yes, Fair Hedon - there's an aspect of this that Lee seems not to grasp.

Hi,

I think MQA could be investigated by the relevant Advertising Standards Authority here.

 

1. The first unfold is the extraction of higher frequency information from the baseband 0Hz to 22kHz (?) bandwidth, and as such the first unfold adds lossy higher bandwidth information (22kHz to 44kHz OR 24kHz to 48kHz).

 

2. The second unfold does NOT include any embedded information, but is upsampling. No new information. This means by MQA's own definition, they are not unfolding a second time - they are upsampling which is a completely different mechanism.

 

As such, MQA are in breach of any advertising standards since stating a second unfold occurs, means that they are stating NEW information is being added between 48kHz to 96kHz, when in fact it is not, and there is NO new information in this frequency band.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Tony Lauck]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

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.

All the money spent buying new DAC hardware is going to vultures.  Consumers have limited funds and any money that doesn't go to the musicians and song writers and the engineers who made the original recordings is going to parasites.

MQA is nothing but a parasitical scheme involving the legal system to extract rent from music lovers at the expense of everyone else. (Legal aspects include proprietary formats backed up with non-disclosure agreements and patents and the use of encryption that can't legally be "circumvented" due to fascist legislation such as the US DMCA law.)

 

IMO the invention of a proprietary digital audio format should be treated as a capital crime under Napoleonic law, where the defendant is presumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence.  But since I'm not an emperor I will just have to apply what little market power I have.  For starters, this means I will not purchase any DAC from a manufacturer who sells MQA products, nor will I purchase any recordings or deal with streaming services that support MQA.  To be specific,  once I learned that Mytek has signed on to MQA, I have removed them from my "acceptable vendor list" despite my being satisfied with Mytek DAC that I have owned for several years.