Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"?

 

image.thumb.png.5b736a34d4d460619b06e9cdb49af911.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Roon Rock->Auralic Aria G2->Schiit Yggdrasil A2->McIntosh C47->McIntosh MC301 Monos->Wilson Audio Sabrinas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...