MQA is Vaporware

[Fair Hedon]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Why such a strident response FH?  I was being civil and responding to your comments.

You are the one presenting your self as a voice of authority..and smugly so...no one here is an authority, they have just done their research.

 

And to add...to get *fake* 192 (upsampled) with MQA, you need an MQA DAC..which means purchasing new hardware, which means the manufacturers win, MQA wins, and more ads get placed in publications.  Follow da money. Works every time.

[Fair Hedon]

33 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So what?  Every new format requires new hardware.  No one is forcing you to buy the DAC.  Audio is in part about selling new products.  That feeds R&D and pays salaries for families.  We get better products every year and adults and children get fed.  As a consumer we are free to choose how often we upgrade.

 

As I pointed out on another forum, DAC tech expires quickly.

More pie in the sky fabrications. 24 bit PCM DACs have been around for more than a decade+.

 

No upgrades needed because PCM is still the standard. If you are into DSD, that has been standard on most DACs,

for 5 years now, and for most it is not even of importance. Schiit Audio is living proof of that.

 

MQA is a fake format, that forces you to purchase new hardware.  Tell the real story, Mr. Honest Journalist.

[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. 

[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.

[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.....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fair Hedon]

19 minutes ago, Shadders said:

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.

I think you are very much on to something.  Along with the misleading technical nonsense, their other big whoppers, like "authentication", and "correcting" for the "original" ADC could be addressed.

 

However this is all far too esoteric for any mainstream consumer protection agency.

 

Our first line of defense, the self crowned so called golden eared authorities in the "press" have failed us.

 

Thankfully, and we should be thankful, others in the industry made a lot of noise...

[Fair Hedon]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Tone it down.

 

You're calling him a ??? because of repeated a technical claim he was told? That's not the test I'd use to determine this. 

 

The corn hole comment. A bit abrasive, unneeded, and borderline against the rules. 

I understand your intent here, and you are right. However, Mr. Scoggins in clearly engaging in classic trolling.

 

Playing dumb, ignoring corrected information, floating opinions as facts, etc.

 

I do see, that he also did receive a similar warning, so your note to me is fair.

[Fair Hedon]

I hear you. Perhaps what makes posters over react or get nasty more than anything else is hypocrisy.

 

And thankfully, that gets called out pretty much every time. And I am sure the list of banned posters who

could not handle being exposed is a mile long.

 

 

[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.

[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.

[Fair Hedon]

The other major MQA shill at Stereophile, is starting his CES reports with as many mentions of MQA as possible.

He is painting the rosiest picture possible.  It seems he is buying the notion that phones are the "gate way" to high res. Yeh ok.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ces-begins-hi-res-revelations-mqa-qobuz-and-more

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mobile-mqa-playback-lg

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-expands-its-reach

 

I love the line, "Qobuz hasn't seen fit" to endorse and use MQA..."yet"...

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

There's that name dropping again.  To the best of my knowledge, neither of these people are experts in data communications or bandwidth requirements.  Once again, you're parroting rather than informing.

 

I see you slagging CA over at Hoffman.  Just can't help yourself, eh?

 

 

I must have missed the "good faith" posts you have made here.

 

Gee, I wonder how the site owner feels about this place being called a "snake pit"...

 

Very classy of Mr.Scoggins. He bumbles over here and posts like an uninformed boob, gets

put straight, and runs off to cry at Hoffman. Nice.

 

At the very least, his industry coddling, uncritical, and consumer un-friendly stance has been exposed and anyone who chooses to read his "articles" going forward will know they were done with a minimum of research and due diligence.

 

So something was gained here.

[Fair Hedon]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sigh, more personal attacks.  Do you not know how to debate without constant attacks on my character?

Just facts.

 

You are clearly uninformed. You were corrected here numerous times for posting incorrect information.

 

You went to another forum to malign this forum. You attacked the credibility of the membership.

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Smartphones are the trojan horse here.  Sell the catalog depth and convenience to gain customers then MQA goes along for the ride.  This is the point I made in my article.  

 

Hirez interest is small which is why you can't go the other way by building a SACD or DVD-Audio disc then trying to gain consumer attention.

 

MQA and the labels are betting, and I think rightly so, that the best way to attract customer is through convenience.  My guess is a strong manager at Universal may not know how many "hirez" subscriptions he will sell nor will he care as long as he gets enough annuity income via monthly subscriptions.

Do your Rose Coloured Glasses have a large MQA logo on them?

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So what?  This is just accurate reporting. CA is a hostile community to many.  Perhaps Chris thinks this brings out a more lively debate but the side effect of the hostility is that it scares off many experienced people.

 

You and others have attacked my character without knowing me or my intentions.  I don't see value in responding any more to your posts.

And it is accurate reporting to say that you are one of the least knowledgeable posters here on MQA, in fact you had to be corrected numerous times, and yet you position your self as an authority with a series of "articles". Clearly you have done little research except talk to pro MQA operatives with financial motives.

 

It is also accurate reporting to state that your position is anything but neutral. It is also accurate to say that you are tone deaf.

 

You ignore factual corrections, rand epeat the same far fetched drivel

 

You complain about being flogged here but yet here you still are.

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, Mordikai said:

Why?

Exactly. A business model that locks consumers into a closed system, extorts fees from DAC makers and labels, and provides no sonic benefit, in fact it degrades the sound. Sounds like a great "plan" to me.

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

Don't forget, Meridian tried to insert a proprietary file format into DVD-A, unsuccessfully. Just wondering if this is their next bite of the apple?

Just one of their many business disasters.

[Fair Hedon]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

You won't get any technical information to back up that specious claim.  Scoggins is here to parrot MQA marketing and drop names.  Nothing more.

If you want some laughs, see his latest posts on his Hoffman thread. Hysterical. he is asking for "logic" based arguments with "evidence".  LOL.

[Fair Hedon]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm actually surprised Hoffman is letting Scoggins take such a beating over there.  The fact that MQA apologists can find no quarter on audio forums is a hopeful sign.  

Every forum needs someone to play the virtual "Village Idiot". He seems happy to do it. His posts are so disingenuous, it defies comprehension.

 

If  I didn't know better, he probably thinks MQA is garbage and is just hoping Uncle Bob and MQA hire him as consultant. Consultants in my book are the wretches of the business world. Parasites that drain shareholder value like nobody's business. They can get behind the most absurd buzzwords and ridiculous business plans with a straight face all the while draining company coffers with a smile.