MQA is Vaporware

[esldude]

52 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

FWIW, my customer service experience with them wasn't particularly positive.

That makes two of us.  I believe Bill would make three. 

[Indydan]

On 1/14/2018 at 9:48 PM, Lee Scoggins said:

 

In 2017, my team won an analytics project to build three predictive models. We used machine learning to predict sales performance.  Our total fees were around $1 million or so.  Our insights saved them $50 million per quarter and grew the business creating many jobs.

 

i would have to take a big pay cut to work for a small company like MQA.

 

CONGRATULATIONS!

 

You are the latest winner of the Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence

 

Only two people have ever won this award; Homer Simpson and now Lee Scoggins. You are in elite company Lee. 

 

 

 

 

[Indydan]

3 hours ago, rickca said:

There are a whole bunch of audio companies who have invested in MQA implementation for their products that hope you're wrong.  How did MQA manage to get so many partners onboard?  It's a remarkable achievement even if you think the whole thing is misguided (as I do).

 

Used car salesman sell clunkers to suckers every day. MQA has some very good used car salesman type people. 

 

Others can see a slickster coming a mile away. That is one of the reasons MQA is despised by some people (myself included). 

[MetalNuts]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

We will see.  The Cheskys have a solid record of innovation in music and some street smarts in business.  HDTracks has been very successful.  I have known them since the early 90s and they are good people.

You don't have to wait and see and I can tell you absolutely that I don't stream and I don't like my music files embedding something that restricts my rights in using the files and compel me how to use it.  No matter how the propaganda MQA tries to brainwash consumers, I am a no brainer and I cannot be brainwashed to believe MQA is doing any good to the sound quality. 

[darkmass]

1 hour ago, MetalNuts said:

I am a no brainer

From your lips to God's ears. 

[FredericV]

7 hours ago, rickca said:

There are a whole bunch of audio companies who have invested in MQA implementation for their products that hope you're wrong.  How did MQA manage to get so many partners onboard?  It's a remarkable achievement even if you think the whole thing is misguided (as I do).

I know several companies which implement MQA but don't believe in it:

1. where the designer does not believe in MQA, but the CEO wants it as it ticks a box on the feature list
2. where the brand does not believe in MQA, but does implement it not to lose business when MQA becomes a dominant business

In case of (1) the designer even send me anti MQA articles, and tells me his latest dac is great but not because of MQA. (2) was an argument which I have on record from a specialist hifi vendor (they make one type of product), but also heard this argument from very big names in Munich 2017. We were one of the exhibitors, and we know a lot of other manufacturers. When asking the big names about MQA, they would answer "yes we do it" and then look down uninterested. This body language tells enough.
 

[FredericV]

8 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Pages 4:

 

 

And 34:

 

 

 

Not in the document as described here:
 

 

There are 2 different PDF's:

https://www.grammypro.com/sites/default/files/delivery_recommendations_for_recorded_music_projects_10_10_17.pdf

https://www.grammypro.com/sites/default/files/recommendations_for_hi_resolution_music_production_05_10_17.pdf

The "for recorded music projects" does not mention MQA. The "for hi resolution music production" does mention it, and uses the exact MQA lingo such as provenance.

[BratStrangler]

7 hours ago, rickca said:

There are a whole bunch of audio companies who have invested in MQA implementation for their products that hope you're wrong.  How did MQA manage to get so many partners onboard?  It's a remarkable achievement even if you think the whole thing is misguided (as I do).

As Lee noted earlier, it’ll be up the consumer.  

[Shadders]

Hi,

Referring back to the Hifi News opinion piece about MQA on CD. I have not seen any negative statements about MQA. It does state that there is aliasing above 48kHz, but no negative impact statement.

 

Hifi News is a popular magazine in the UK - and it does provide technical studies/reports, but again, nothing negative about MQA is printed.

 

If the press continue to be uncritical of MQA, then the readership will eventually believe what they are told. It is after all subjective reviews that people take away from a magazine review.

 

And we all know that audiophiles are easily swayed as to the latest and greatest - cables, cable lifters, special USB electronics etc. Many people need to be told what they should be hearing.

 

Peoples understanding and evidence about the shortcomings of MQA are scattered in the pages across this forum. If one were to direct anyone to this site, then the relevant information is so sparsely distributed, that all people will eventually take away from the MQA threads are the exchanges (sometimes vitriolic) between people rather than the information content.

 

I think this has been said before, that what is required is the centralisation of the technical criticisms of MQA in an easily readable format. This can be a thread which is added to as new aspects and technical understanding evolves, and does NOT include exchanges of views which detract from the science. The statements in the thread MUST be backed up with evidence, and not rhetoric.

 

Then all that is required (hopefully) is the direction to the thread for anyone who wants to see the details - which can include referrals to other sites that expose MQA for what it is ?

 

Or should we just link to : https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

 

Makes life a lot easier.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[mcgillroy]

There indeed is a strange front-page-back-page dynamic characteristic for MQA.

 

Front-page it’s MQA-hurrah only while the fora contain a lot of very well informed MQA criticism. Even the comment sections under MQA articles are usually better informed than the main text.

 

The technical aptitude present here and elsewhere remains unmatched by the official audiophile press. Not to mention the presence of people like Hansen, Lucey and others. Why aren’t their statements front-page material?!

 

The only explanation is that the official press is in compliance with MQA. Why? Because their audience are not the consumers but the manufacturers buying adds. The unspoken deal is that the press ventriloquizes whatever technical mumbo-jumbo manufacturers choose to base their marketing on. As long as “reviews” sell kit adds are being bought.

 

Cables and other tweaks perfected this system and MQA tried to reiterate this cycle.

 

Turns out they underestimated their audience. Picking a fight with Geeks who listen to music is not a smart marketing strategy. Trying to persuade such an audience that Shannon-Nyquist is moot and employing new-speak about DRM and lossless gets you eyeballs. Just not the ones that squash bugs but those which shake your little format until it falls apart and reveals itself as what it is: a house of well told lies and we’ll know recipes easily available elsewhere. Not to mention without the IP-issues from fair-use to single-arbiter industry control.

 

But as you rightly remark as long as this stays on the back-pages MQA can rest itself on continuously being promoted in the New Yorker, Economist and elsewhere.

 

What is needed is a Xivero-style paper version 2.0 compiling everything Mansr, Archimago, Fokus, RT66 and others have found out. Either community writen via Google-Docs or somebody sits down drafts it and invites others to review it.

 

CA-front page would be a good place to publish such a citizen-science MQA-article. Chris would you be game?!

[BratStrangler]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

While I agree with much of this Chris, there should be boundaries.  Earlier my competence as a consultant was questioned.  Given that my consulting work has no bearing on the discussion, why is this necessary? 

 

There should be a basic level of respect for participants...but to be honest I don’t see that being the case if you support elements of MQA.

Lee - your self awareness is highly limited. Take a step back and consider why you are receiving the grief that you are (and why you keep coming back for more).

 

This isn’t  the Hoffman forum and seems that’s what you are looking for.   A nice little industry honeypot for the shills such as yourself (and an increasingly docile user base).   

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mcgillroy said:

CA-front page would be a good place to publish such a citizen-science MQA-article. Chris would you be game?!

 

Most certainly. I reached out to people to do this, but so far nothing has come of it. 

 

I’d love to publish both sides to the story. I already published the Q&A with Bob Stuart, so I would like to publish the other side of MQA. It’s impossible for anyone to get the whole picture without both sides. 

 

I’m all ears for suggestions. 

[Sonicularity]

4 hours ago, BratStrangler said:

As Lee noted earlier, it’ll be up the consumer.  

 

I'd agree with you as it has been initially typed.  Exactly up what should probably remain unsaid.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

You don't have to wait and see and I can tell you absolutely that I don't stream and I don't like my music files embedding something that restricts my rights in using the files and compel me how to use it.  No matter how the propaganda MQA tries to brainwash consumers, I am a no brainer and I cannot be brainwashed to believe MQA is doing any good to the sound quality. 

 

Sure, not everyone will be into streaming but I think it has the best chance for widespread appeal.

 

As for sound quality, I let my ears be the guide. They remain the best instrument out there for evaluation.  So far, I have been impressed by the sound quality.

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sure, not everyone will be into streaming but I think it has the best chance for widespread appeal.

 

As for sound quality, I let my ears be the guide. They remain the best instrument out there for evaluation.  So far, I have been impressed by the sound quality.

And the fact that you can be duped by lossy DSP tells us all we need to know.

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, BratStrangler said:

Lee - your self awareness is highly limited. Take a step back and consider why you are receiving the grief that you are (and why you keep coming back for more).

 

This isn’t  the Hoffman forum and seems that’s what you are looking for.   A nice little industry honeypot for the shills such as yourself (and an increasingly docile user base).   

I find it shocking he has not been banned for telling someone to F OFF, and  calling another person a J $$$.

[Sonicularity]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sure, not everyone will be into streaming but I think it has the best chance for widespread appeal.

 

As for sound quality, I let my ears be the guide. They remain the best instrument out there for evaluation.  So far, I have been impressed by the sound quality.

 

Are you making any reasonable attempts to isolate your ears by removing the abundance of bias that is already very well known to exist with human hearing?   Also, when you are evaluating, do you consider precisely matching volume levels and ensuring that identical sources are used, when applicable?  

 

It is the details that matter.  My Sentra is as fast as a Ferrari when dropped straight down from a 500 foot cliff.  

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Sure, not everyone will be into streaming but I think it has the best chance for widespread appeal.

You keep talking about MQA in terms of how to maximise its penetration (including the consumer's arse), as if the desire for this was beyond discussion. Moreover, you post here mostly during business hours. Is it thus too much to conclude that you are in fact working not as a "journalist" but as a consultant for MQA? You've already bragged about your prowess in that field.

[Dr Tone]

Just now, Sonicularity said:

Are you making any reasonable attempts to isolate your ears by removing the abundance of bias that is already very well known to exist with human hearing?   Also, when you are evaluating, do you consider precisely matching volume levels and ensuring that identical sources are used, when applicable?

 

I thought it was common knowledge that persons with the financial means to buy expensive systems that are "Extremely Resolving" are not susceptible to bias.

[Lee Scoggins]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

You keep talking about MQA in terms of how to maximise its penetration (including the consumer's arse), as if the desire for this was beyond discussion. Moreover, you post here mostly during business hours. Is it thus too much to conclude that you are in fact working not as a "journalist" but as a consultant for MQA? You've already bragged about your prowess in that field.

 

I mostly post at night and I have a day job.  I have no consulting arrangements or any other arrangements with MQA.  I am just a hirez fan.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Are you making any reasonable attempts to isolate your ears by removing the abundance of bias that is already very well known to exist with human hearing?   Also, when you are evaluating, do you consider precisely matching volume levels and ensuring that identical sources are used, when applicable?  

 

It is the details that matter.  My Sentra is as fast as a Ferrari when dropped straight down from a 500 foot cliff.  

 

All my listening is level matched and the gear remains the same except for variable in question.

[Shadders]

14 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I find it shocking he has not been banned for telling someone to F OFF, and  calling another person a J $$$.

Hi,

If you ban Lee, then you won't be able to contradict statements.

 

He does have valid points in some of the posts.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Fair Hedon]

3 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

If you ban Lee, then you won't be able to contradict statements.

 

He does have valid points in some of the posts.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

I fail to see his valid points, and if they are there, they are wrapped in a bouquet of misleading statements.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I fail to see his valid points, and if they are there, they are wrapped in a bouquet of misleading statements.

HI,

A quick one without having to trawl through all the posts - he stated if he likes the sound of MQA then he will purchase - same for others throughout the world.

 

Despite MQA shortcomings, and technical inferiority to other high resolution files, if people like MQA they will buy it. People purchase MP3 as opposed to CD - despite the superiority of CD.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Fair Hedon]

17 minutes ago, Shadders said:

HI,

A quick one without having to trawl through all the posts - he stated if he likes the sound of MQA then he will purchase - same for others throughout the world.

 

Despite MQA shortcomings, and technical inferiority to other high resolution files, if people like MQA they will buy it. People purchase MP3 as opposed to CD - despite the superiority of CD.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Point taken, but he and the rest position them selves as voices of authority and those with better than average ears. So equating the fact that most people can't hear any difference between mp3 and Redbook with the audiophiles who "like" MQA over the corresponding hirez file is a false equivalency.

 

The average listener with an mp3 collection who don't lo anything of higher resolution have no agenda, they just want music.