MQA is Vaporware

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

I've been meaning to ask you if you agree with the following:

 

IF MQA is lossy AND lossy is not high res THEN MQA is not high-end (thus not audiophile either)

 

"Lossy is not high res" isn't a logically valid statement.

 

However, it's true that not wanting / ignoring / discarding high-res in favor of lo-res is not audiophile.

[semente]

Just now, tmtomh said:

 

Lee, I'm trying really hard to believe that you're not trolling - I'm not talking about conventional trolling, but rather promotional trolling

 

I think the word is "shilling"

[MikeyFresh]

15 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

It takes the CA community down that respectful debate does not occur here.  The reputation of this community is pretty low I am hearing from friends that are very experienced but gave up posting here.

 

That might be your take, or that of the MQA industry insider circle, but it isn't fact nor any widely held opinion. There are always bad apples on any forum, but your attempt to discredit the entirety of this forum is both ridiculous and quite telling of your agenda.

With specific regard to MQA, there have been numerous attempts by very qualified individuals here to have a respectful debate, however to date there has been no actual response to the proof they have provided in debunking MQA's marketing claims.

Some of the recent previous posts in this thread have it exactly right, you should present your evidence or information counter to that which has been very carefully presented here, otherwise no one can take you seriously as anything but an MQA shill.

 

 

[semente]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

"Lossy is not high res" isn't a logically valid statement.

 

However, it's true that not wanting / ignoring / discarding high-res in favor of lo-res is not audiophile.

 

Sorry, I corrected the phrasing to "lossy is in many cases not as good as the high res Master" but wasn't fast enough.

[tmtomh]

31 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I think the word is "shilling"

 

Yes, you are right! But for my part, I am trying to give Lee the benefit of the doubt. People get entrenched in their positions even when they're not shilling. And people also get an outsized feeling of ownership of a discussion when they have a new article or blog post about it (as Lee recently has published). So he could indeed be shilling for MQA; or shilling for visibility and page hits on his web site/blog; or just really stubborn about clinging to his points; or just not a terribly attentive reader of others' (and for that matter his own) arguments. I'm sort of curious to see which it is. 

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

So he could indeed be shilling for MQA; or shilling for visibility and page hits on his web site/blog; or really stubborn; or just not a terribly attentive reader of others' (and for that mater his own) arguments. I'm sort of curious to see which it is. 

 

It's all of the above.

[eclectic]

 

I remember this post from a few months ago.

 

At the time I thought it was funny but nothing more. However we've now had a series of MQA advocates, one after another, pushing the narrative. I think I need a tin foil hat,  I'm thinking this is a conspiracy. Actually I'll get me a King's Lead Hat..

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

That might be your take, or that of the MQA industry insider circle, but it isn't fact nor any widely held opinion. There are always bad apples on any forum, but your attempt to discredit the entirety of this forum is both ridiculous and quite telling of your agenda.

With specific regard to MQA, there have been numerous attempts by very qualified individuals here to have a respectful debate, however to date there has been no actual response to the proof they have provided in debunking MQA's marketing claims.

Some of the recent previous posts in this thread have it exactly right, you should present your evidence or information counter to that which has been very carefully presented here, otherwise no one can take you seriously as anything but an MQA shill.

 

Notice how Mr. Scoggins lowers himself to post in a forum that his "friends" have a low opinion of.  To me, it begs the question if he's posting here out of some kind of altruism to rehabilitate CA, or if he's just shilling.

[Norton]

On 9 January 2018 at 8:24 PM, Rt66indierock said:

 

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.

 

Yes I do.  Very much a "having the band in the room with you" experience.  Not  my kind of music, but couldn't remotely be described as thin sounding.

[Lee Scoggins]

Interesting article about new streaming services on TWICE:

 

https://www.twice.com/product/ces-2018-high-res-audio-grows-as-industry-pivots-to-streaming

 

So we are soon to have Tidal competitors.

[rickca]

Every one of MQA's CA shills ambassadors are clones and I will no longer engage with them.  It's tiresome and pointless.  I actually think MQA loves the controversy because it keeps them in the spotlight.  Turn the spotlight off. 

[Shadders]

54 minutes ago, eclectic said:

. Actually I'll get me a King's Lead Hat..

Hi,

I remember this from Ultravox,which is a cover of the Eno original recording.

Regards,

Shadders.

[mansr]

Mark Waldrep has an update on MQA:

 

"Interestingly, I received an email from Robert Stuart as I neared completion and I sent him a copy of the chapter on MQA, which is titled MQA…A Solution To What?. As a friend and contributor to the book, I assured him that I would let him review his interview and the chapter on MQA. He expressed some concerns after having seen a few pages posted in a Kickstarter update. I also asked him about the MQA conversions that have been done of my files and promised to me (almost 4 years ago now). I have not heard back from him about any changes or when I might be able to evaluate the MQA’s AIX Records audio files. The chapter stands as written." (Happy New Year! Looking Forward — and Back! http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6062)

[Fair Hedon]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi Fair Hedon,

Taking this further, then this may have serious ramifications for MQA.

 

Assume that the Master is 192kHz, with 96kHz bandwidth - 24bits depth.

1. If the file contains NO information for the frequency band 48kHz to 96kHz (is upsampled), then this is NOT a Master quality file, since the information from 48kHz to 96kHz is missing.
2. Therefore the selling/streaming of said file as Master Quality is a false sale - Fraudulent.
3. As such, MQA cannot sell any file derived from a 192kHz Master as Master Quality, if half the frequency band information is missing. (fraud).
4. If the majority of MQA files are as above (192kHz based), then their system is misrepresented by calling it MQA = Master Quality Authentication, since it is not a Master Quality.
5. Therefore, they may then need to stop using the acronym MQA and name Master Quality, as it is a false representation of what they are selling,

Regards,

Shadders.

I completely agree, that on a technical basis, a very serious case could be made for exactly the reasons you post above in the numbered items.

 

The only thing they could possibly skate on is the absurd claim, parroted by the pathetic legion of press sycophants, is that the MQA file is of "higher fidelity", because that could be construed as a matter of taste.

 

But all you would need to do is bring in the original production to team, and they would clearly say that the MQA version is NOT what the artist intended and not what they heard in the studio.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, rickca said:

Every one of MQA's CA shills ambassadors are clones and I will no longer engage with them.  It's tiresome and pointless.  I actually think MQA loves the controversy because it keeps them in the spotlight.  Turn the spotlight off. 

Have you noticed they all seem to having almost identical talking points...and they all seem to ignore posts that debunk MQA technically with facts, and expose their business plan....literally to a man...in the exact same way...and they all use the same deflection techniques...hmmm..

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

It's all of the above.

+1. Bingo.

[Shadders]

25 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I completely agree, that on a technical basis, a very serious case could be made for exactly the reasons you post above in the numbered items.

 

The only thing they could possibly skate on is the absurd claim, parroted by the pathetic legion of press sycophants, is that the MQA file is of "higher fidelity", because that could be construed as a matter of taste.

 

But all you would need to do is bring in the original production to team, and they would clearly say that the MQA version is NOT what the artist intended and not what they heard in the studio.

Hi Fair Hedon,

In either case, for the upsampling, it is fraud since there is no information in the frequency band 48kHz to 96kHz, hence the 2nd unfolding is meaningless. So it could be claimed, in the advertising/descriptive aspect, the second unfolding must be dropped.

For the quality aspect - they cannot claim master quality since again, the claimed MQA master file is half empty, when the studio master file has the full 192kHz information.

Advertising standards hopefully would examine these aspects. I do not think that only having half the information is subjective - it is factual.

 

The review below indicates that an LED lights up when it is a 192kHz file :

https://www.whathifi.com/meridian/explorer-2/review

Since the frequency band is half empty, then this light is fraudulent. Again, advertising standards could examine - and determine that people are being conned.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Fair Hedon]

39 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Fair Hedon,

In either case, for the upsampling, it is fraud since there is no information in the frequency band 48kHz to 96kHz, hence the 2nd unfolding is meaningless. So it could be claimed, in the advertising/descriptive aspect, the second unfolding must be dropped.

For the quality aspect - they cannot claim master quality since again, the claimed MQA master file is half empty, when the studio master file has the full 192kHz information.

Advertising standards hopefully would examine these aspects. I do not think that only having half the information is subjective - it is factual.

 

The review below indicates that an LED lights up when it is a 192kHz file :

https://www.whathifi.com/meridian/explorer-2/review

Since the frequency band is half empty, then this light is fraudulent. Again, advertising standards could examine - and determine that people are being conned.

Regards,

Shadders.

Yes, all correct, but the reason they want you to do that 2nd "unfold" is so you go out an buy an MQA DAC with that glorious blue light. Otherwise, that is only half the pay off for them..and I DO mean PAY off.

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Norton said:

 

Yes I do.  Very much a "having the band in the room with you" experience.  Not  my kind of music, but couldn't remotely be described as thin sounding.

Norton,

 

Thank you for listening and reporting about music that isn’t your favorite. For me if early Foghat has an in room feel then some part of remastering changed the depth of the soundstage. I won’t know until I get an MQA download and listen carefully to hear how the bands spacing has been changed.

 

If you didn’t hear a slight thinness very slight then the sound is changed. More to analyze but it isn’t the sound I would expect. Certainly not consistent with Dave Edmunds produced records in early seventies.

[firedog]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 If the MQA version of Animals is an "almost 24/96" version of Animals, then that would be the best digital experience and I think people would get intrigued and might up their $10 Tidal subscription to a $20 subscription for Masters access.

Again, why not just release the ACTUAL 24/96 version for streaming. There is no technical or bandwidth reason it can't be done. 

You seem to blind to this simple fact, and somehow see MQA as a needed innovation for hi-res streaming. It simply isn't needed.

[asdf1000]

Just now, firedog said:

You seem to blind to this simple fact, and somehow see MQA as a needed innovation for hi-res streaming.

 

For this reason I can't understand HDTracks decision to use MQA for streaming - given their vault.

 

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

For this reason I can't understand HDTracks decision to use MQA for streaming - given their vault.

 

Their "vault" isn't a vault. They buy the right to sell X number of downloads of an album.  They can't even sell more downloads than the X number unless they boy more "rights". That's all. It doesn't give them the right to do anything else  with the material. They can't stream it, unless they buy streaming rights. 

 

I'm guessing that they are using MQA versions for one of two reasons: a) they aren't being given a chance to buy the rights for non-MQA versions and/or: b) the MQA versions are cheaper. 

[asdf1000]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

Their "vault" isn't a vault.

 

Agreed, I should have used "vault"

 

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

a) they aren't being given a chance to buy the rights for non-MQA versions and/or: b) the MQA versions are cheaper. 

 

I think b). The Qobuz Sublime+ streaming pricing has probably been set by the labels so HDTracks probably thought that's too much to charge their potential customers?

 

Maybe?

 

[Fokus]

6 hours ago, Shadders said:

Advertising standards hopefully would examine these aspects. I do not think that only having half the information is subjective - it is factual.

 

Don't be naive. For an AS body to take this on it needs access to impartial expertise. Impartial almost implies people from outside the music or sound industry, and as for expertise ... my guess is that not even 10% of trained engineers totally and deeply understand sampling as it pertains to audio.

 

And this is even without touching the entirely subjective nature of things, as well as the non-standard language used in the MQA claims.

 

MQA is too slippery, too sneaky for this.

[Lee Scoggins]

27 minutes ago, firedog said:

Again, why not just release the ACTUAL 24/96 version for streaming. There is no technical or bandwidth reason it can't be done. 

You seem to blind to this simple fact, and somehow see MQA as a needed innovation for hi-res streaming. It simply isn't needed.

 

I don't think you are seeing my point.  Labels feel 1. that streaming is the future and 2. MQA is an important component.  So my guess is that they don't really care about sound quality so much as getting more people paying them a monthly annuity to do streaming.  For all I know, they may just be using MQA from a marketing standpoint leveraging the sound quality to attract interest.  I have heard that mastering teams at each label spent a good bit of time evaluating and approving the encoding process.

 

Not every track will have a 24/96 source file.  MQA may be advantageous as it can enhance 24/48 and 16/44 files as well.

 

Also, you make the assumption that bandwidth is plentiful.  In my discussions with people in the industry such as David Chesky and Ken Forsythe, bandwidth at the scale of streaming is a very real issue.