MQA is Vaporware

[rickca]

2 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Major brain cramp on my part! Yes, I am from QC, so I know what poutine is. I had one yesterday! 

Hopefully Vladimir will find it amusing.  You may want to stay away from Moscow for a bit.

[Lee Scoggins]

16 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Or, he seeks to promote and drive clicks to his own blog, right?

 

So he has a vested interest in posting under his real name.

 

Yes, that’s it!  Congrats you figured it out!

 

For every click PTA gets, I get $10.  Ten more pages of discussion and I can pay cash for that Miami Blue Porsche Cayman I’ve had my eye on.

[rickca]

I live in a condo.  My next door neighbor is drop dead gorgeous.  Her name is Luna.  Luna is a one year old purebred yellow labrador.  She is as hyperactive as a golden retriever, but apparently she settles right down when I play Debussy.  So Luna is an audiophile.  Luna is still undecided about MQA.

[MikeyFresh]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

For every click PTA gets, I get $10.

 

Outstanding, but I was more pointing to the vanity aspect, and the notion of self importance and industry "fame" part and parcel of your constant name dropping to use just one example.

 

I think for a McKinsey consultant, this yearn to be considered some sort of recognized industry "player" is likely far more important to you than any tiny monetary consideration from PTA.

[Indydan]

I was looking at Mr. Scoggins' mini biography at PTA:

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/contributors/

 

Here is a copy paste of part of it:

 

"He was involved in the first high resolution recordings which eventually became the DVD-Audio format."

 

Now DVD-Audio uses MLP, Meridian lossless packaging as the format. Of course MLP was created by Bob Stuart at Meridian. I can't and will not claim Mr. Scoggins worked on MLP with Stuart, because the information is to vague to make such an assertion. 

 

If Mr. Scoggins is inclined, I am curious to know if he has worked with Bob Stuart in the past. 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

What I don't get is your conviction that the 24/96 version is more "real." It's just a little different in what gets emphasized.

 

Maybe real isn't the best description, it's hard to describe sound.

The MQA version sounds to me a bit similar to music that's been volume compressed (I'm not saying it is); it gives that sensation of the instrumentation being more up front. "Real" means the 24/96 sounds less artificial to me. The MQA has a sound that's initially impressive, but I'd much prefer to listen to the plain hi-res long term - the MQA has a quality I find bothersome after a while. My system is very revealing of detail, so I don't need emphasis put on the detail in the recording - maybe some systems do (I'm not referring to your system, just making a general comment). I just need good quality recordings and I can pretty much hear all the detail that's there. 

 

Again, my problem with the gushing reviews of MQA isn't that there are people who like it. It's with some listeners and professionals who've never heard an MQA track that didn't improve the sound. I just don't find that a credible position. 

 

Beyond that, there seems to be almost no discussion in the audio press of the fact that MQA isn't really an "authenticated" master is an audio-meaningful sense by the original artists, and is fact an altered/processed file. There should  be some recognition of the fact that it is just a different kind of processing that some people find pleasing and some don't - and not the praise for it as some sort of revolutionary improvement in SQ that is more accurate to the source.

[Lee Scoggins]

26 minutes ago, Indydan said:

I was looking at Mr. Scoggins' mini biography at PTA:

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/contributors/

 

Here is a copy paste of part of it:

 

"He was involved in the first high resolution recordings which eventually became the DVD-Audio format."

 

Now DVD-Audio uses MLP, Meridian lossless packaging as the format. Of course MLP was created by Bob Stuart at Meridian. I can't and will not claim Mr. Scoggins worked on MLP with Stuart, because the information is to vague to make such an assertion. 

 

If Mr. Scoggins is inclined, I am curious to know if he has worked with Bob Stuart in the past. 

 

I have not worked with Bob Stuart.  I was involved with early hirez at Chesky Records working Bob Katz and David Chesky in the early 90s.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Outstanding, but I was more pointing to the vanity aspect, and the notion of self importance and industry "fame" part and parcel of your constant name dropping to use just one example.

 

I think for a McKinsey consultant, this yearn to be considered some sort of recognized industry "player" is likely far more important to you than any tiny monetary consideration from PTA.

 

This is the way I look at my passion for good sound.  Everytime I meet someone involved in the industry I learn something new.  I like new ideas and innovation so that is what drives me.  The people at the highest level are driven as much or more by ideas than money.  And it seems the happiest people are building new things.

[firedog]

35 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is the way I look at my passion for good sound.  Everytime I meet someone involved in the industry I learn something new.  I like new ideas and innovation so that is what drives me.  The people at the highest level are driven as much or more by ideas than money.  And it seems the happiest people are building new things.

That's all fine. Our problem with you in this thread is that you seem to make judgements on MQA without any actual analysis ; rather you talk to people "involved in the industry" and then make a judgement based on your  "sense" of what is correct. There have been several substantive  technical objections raised here and elsewhere that you've ignored, and and then repeated your previously stated conclusions without taking them into account. 

 

Well sorry, you should be doing actual technical analysis to see if the claims  of people "in the industry" hold up. So far you've given no indication that you have either the inclination, theoretical understanding, or math skills to properly evaluate what you are hearing in your conversations.

 

As such, your conclusions are only personal impressions, and have little value for anyone other than yourself or others looking for a subjective "review"; unfortunately, a major audio mag is presenting them as if they are a true evalution/anlysis of MQA.

[Shadders]

9 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

 

Indeed, it is a valid test if the way you listen to music is via YouTube playback of tracks captured by live recording of somebody else's system playing the music!

 

 

Oh, but I most definitely accept your experience that you couldn't hear any good reason to adopt MQA based on that video!

 

By the way, I couldn't tell either, but I definitely could hear a meaningful difference when I listened directly on my own system to the original CD and MQA tracks used in the video, which I were already familiar with because I'm a big Chris Thile fan. Yo Yo Ma's cello sounds like he's using more rosin on his bow, and Chris Thile's mandolin is sweeter in the right way on the MQA version. My suggestion: check out the MQA version of Thile's latest release, "Thanks for Listening" - the best thing he's done outside of his Punch Brothers stuff. The recording is well done and captures the transient, metallic detail of the picked mandolin noticeably better than the CD version.  

Hi,

Whatever the system, the recording was adequate to show the differences between MQA and other formats.

 

The reason i added the anecdote on the cables was that, in other peoples opinion, i was getting the wrong answer that cables do not make a difference. Same with MQA - i must keep trying until i like MQA.

 

I do not hear much difference between CD and 96kHz/24bit - i have some pure audio blu-ray discs.

 

People like MP3 instead of CD of the same album - because they are attuned to MP3 from the start - they think music sould sound like that.

 

If MQA was the only format that people have ever listened to, then they will think that it is the better format compared to CD, as an example.

 

MQA is different, not better.

 

When you know how fake the format is with regards to replacing information lost in the original recording - then it is a backward step in technology. Technically it is a very well engineered system, but from a engineering and consumer perspective in an attempt to attain better recordings, it is deficient.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

 

[mansr]

6 hours ago, rickca said:

I live in a condo.  My next door neighbor is drop dead gorgeous.  Her name is Luna.  Luna is a one year old purebred yellow labrador.  She is as hyperactive as a golden retriever, but apparently she settles right down when I play Debussy.  So Luna is an audiophile.  Luna is still undecided about MQA.

Clair de Luna?

[rickca]

Apparently, Alexa likes Budweiser beer.  With discriminating taste like that, maybe she likes MQA too.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/15/16892306/alexa-amazon-opinion-movies-music-tv-shows-beer

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, rickca said:

Apparently, Alexa likes Budweiser beer.  With discriminating taste like that, maybe she likes MQA too.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/15/16892306/alexa-amazon-opinion-movies-music-tv-shows-beer

British Alexa likes "Belgian beers." When I asked about MQA, she told me it was a lossy codec.

[Lee Scoggins]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

That's all fine. Our problem with you in this thread is that you seem to make judgements on MQA without any actual analysis ; rather you talk to people "involved in the industry" and then make a judgement based on your  "sense" of what is correct. There have been several substantive  technical objections raised here and elsewhere that you've ignored, and and then repeated your previously stated conclusions without taking them into account. 

 

Well sorry, you should be doing actual technical analysis to see if the claims  of people "in the industry" hold up. So far you've given no indication that you have either the inclination, theoretical understanding, or math skills to properly evaluate what you are hearing in your conversations.

 

As such, your conclusions are only personal impressions, and have little value for anyone other than yourself or others looking for a subjective "review"; unfortunately, a major audio mag is presenting them as if they are a true evalution/anlysis of MQA.

 

Firedog,

 

I've ignored some of the technical points simply because I am still researching the subject and don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides.  Remember, I have only published the article that deals with the business model and even on that I am doing more work.  The math is not a problem as that is what I am good at.  I build predictive models for a living and use AI algorithms.  If I had poor math skills I would not be able to do my job.  But I'm equally as good at evaluating business models and applying my critical listening skills.  And I have a background in making hirez recordings (PCM and DSD) so I know a few things about how all this works and what we can hear and what are some key considerations to good sound.

 

I think you and others are looking at MQA primarily through an engineering lens whereas I am trying to apply some problem solving skills developed from my consulting work to examine what the future of the business model is, ie. how likely is MQA to be successful.  So I do spend time on looking at who the MQA ecosystem involves in terms of companies and people.

 

We may have different opinions on MQA but I am going about it in a thoughtful manner.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Whatever the system, the recording was adequate to show the differences between MQA and other formats.

 

The reason i added the anecdote on the cables was that, in other peoples opinion, i was getting the wrong answer that cables do not make a difference. Same with MQA - i must keep trying until i like MQA.

 

I do not hear much difference between CD and 96kHz/24bit - i have some pure audio blu-ray discs.

 

People like MP3 instead of CD of the same album - because they are attuned to MP3 from the start - they think music sould sound like that.

 

If MQA was the only format that people have ever listened to, then they will think that it is the better format compared to CD, as an example.

 

MQA is different, not better.

 

When you know how fake the format is with regards to replacing information lost in the original recording - then it is a backward step in technology. Technically it is a very well engineered system, but from a engineering and consumer perspective in an attempt to attain better recordings, it is deficient.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

 

 

Shadders, 

 

What system do you listen to music on?

 

Lee

[tmtomh]

32 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Firedog,

 

I've ignored some of the technical points simply because I am still researching the subject and don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides.  Remember, I have only published the article that deals with the business model and even on that I am doing more work.  The math is not a problem as that is what I am good at.  I build predictive models for a living and use AI algorithms.  If I had poor math skills I would not be able to do my job.  But I'm equally as good at evaluating business models and applying my critical listening skills.  And I have a background in making hirez recordings (PCM and DSD) so I know a few things about how all this works and what we can hear and what are some key considerations to good sound.

 

I think you and others are looking at MQA primarily through an engineering lens whereas I am trying to apply some problem solving skills developed from my consulting work to examine what the future of the business model is, ie. how likely is MQA to be successful.  So I do spend time on looking at who the MQA ecosystem involves in terms of companies and people.

 

We may have different opinions on MQA but I am going about it in a thoughtful manner.

 

@Lee Scoggins, I feel you are being highly disingenuous here. You write that you've ignored the technical points because you are "still researching" and "don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides." But that's not actually true, because your "Why MQA is good business" arguments have been based on an underlying assertion - often implicit, but sometimes explicit - about the technical benefits of MQA.

 

As @firedog, I, and numerous others have pointed out repeatedly, you're not actually ignoring the technical issues and questions about MQA. Rather, you're ignoring only the technical objections, and you repeat the claimed technical benefits claimed in MQA's PR materials.

 

The reason this is a problem is that your parroting of MQA's "the tech is just fine, nothing to see here folks" line allows you to equate what's good for MQA's business model with what's good for music consumers concerned about high quality sound. Your comments have made this equation over and over and over, and it's been pointed out to you over and over and over - and still you repeat the same conflation.

 

I find that behavior, and your apparent refusal to even acknowledge it let alone modify it, troubling. I'm all for free speech, but if you truly "don't wish to comment" until you've researched the technical issues, then how about not commenting in this thread until you've.... researched the technical issues?

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Shadders, 

 

What system do you listen to music on?

 

Lee

Hi Lee,

I use an Audiolab 8200AP as the preamp, a Cambridge Audio Azur 650A as the power amplifier, and self build Transmission Line 2-way speakers - floor standing, Volt BM220.8 bass/mid driver, and Seas H400 metal dome tweeter.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

@Lee Scoggins, I feel you are being highly disingenuous here. You write that you've ignored the technical points because you are "still researching" and "don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides." But that's not actually true, because your "Why MQA is good business" arguments have been based on an underlying assertion - often implicit, but sometimes explicit - about the technical benefits of MQA.

 

As @firedog, I, and numerous others have pointed out repeatedly, you're not actually ignoring the technical issues and questions about MQA. Rather, you're ignoring only the technical objections, and you repeat the claimed technical benefits claimed in MQA's PR materials.

 

The reason this is a problem is that your parroting of MQA's "the tech is just fine, nothing to see here folks" line allows you to equate what's good for MQA's business model with what's good for music consumers concerned about high quality sound. Your comments have made this equation over and over and over, and it's been pointed out to you over and over and over - and still you repeat the same conflation.

 

I find that behavior, and your apparent refusal to even acknowledge it let alone modify it, troubling. I'm all for free speech, but if you truly "don't wish to comment" until you've researched the technical issues, then how about not commenting in this thread until you've.... researched the technical issues?

 

This is a mischaracterization.  The good business arguments I have made are based on stakeholder buy-in leading to more music availability.

 

[mansr]

47 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I've ignored some of the technical points simply because I am still researching the subject and don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides.  Remember, I have only published the article that deals with the business model and even on that I am doing more work.  The math is not a problem as that is what I am good at.  I build predictive models for a living and use AI algorithms.  If I had poor math skills I would not be able to do my job.  But I'm equally as good at evaluating business models and applying my critical listening skills.  And I have a background in making hirez recordings (PCM and DSD) so I know a few things about how all this works and what we can hear and what are some key considerations to good sound.

Wow. The level of ignorance on display here is astounding.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi Lee,

I use an Audiolab 8200AP as the preamp, a Cambridge Audio Azur 650A as the power amplifier, and self build Transmission Line 2-way speakers - floor standing, Volt BM220.8 bass/mid driver, and Seas H400 metal dome tweeter.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

What cables have you experimented with?

[Shadders]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What cables have you experimented with?

Hi Lee,

I tried biwiring with 79 strand and mains cable, an expensive RCA/Phono cable - cost £80 (this is expensive for me).

I have never purchased "exotic" cables as electrically, QED 79 strand is optimum.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Fokus]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 stakeholder buy-in leading to more music availability.

 

MQA reduces music availability.

 

Once MQA is everywhere (their self-confessed plans for domination) those lacking a decoder will experience reduced baseband quality (compared to CD). And since the entire MQA concept, and thus the possible decoders, is incompatible with a number of modern audio system architectures there will be people without a decoder. Reduced music availability.

 

And no, I don't see cellphones with MQA as increased availability. Hi-res on the move is more than a bit silly, not?

 

[Fokus]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Wow. The level of ignorance on display here is astounding.

 

But it is properly matched by a level of something that rhymes with ignorance.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Wow. The level of ignorance on display here is astounding.

Hi mans - You and others may believe this to be true, but the ways it's worded comes off as a personal attack and sets the tone that it's totally cool to call someone ignorant.

 

Please use a differnt choice of language and try to offer at least a couple bullet points to backup your statement.

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi mans - You and others may believe this to be true, but the ways it's worded comes off as a personal attack and sets the tone that it's totally cool to call someone ignorant.

 

Please use a differnt choice of language and try to offer at least a couple bullet points to backup your statement.

There's a lot more to maths than predictive models and business analytics. If Lee thinks being good at those things (for which we have only his word) will be of any help in understanding digital signal processing, he is being ignorant.  Moreover, making a few recordings is not the same as understanding the mathematics behind the formats. Using a hammer does not make you an expert in metallurgy.