MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

I look at this like any other job. If you want to invent Post-It Notes on your own, go for it. Otherwise go work for 3M who will pay you peanuts compared to the value of the invention. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 hours ago, Fyper said:

That's interesting, because if MQA have it their way, they'll actually create a new golden era for piracy...

Does this industry ever learn?

 

I don't think so. Meaning, if MQA was the standard and the only music available, piracy wouldn't change. People who pirate will be pirates. When people can purchase music legally and conveniently, they will. If 99% of people don't care about sound quality, they won't care if they purchase an MQA file and they don't have a decoder. It will play back on whatever they have and they'll be totally fine. No reason to pirate.

 

Plus, I'm not sure what would be pirated is MQA became the standard. Why would people pirate something they apparently don't want? Perhaps I'm not seeing the picture you are. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, 4est said:

 

 

Magneplanar !

 

Wadia - http://www.wadia.com/en-us/corporate/history

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, botrytis said:

What I want to see, is a third party double blind test, which demonstrates that MQA is superior and not just different. This would go along way, but Meridian being involved makes all the listening tests suspect. Also, it would be nice to know WHERE the files are coming from and that they are from the same master (a guarantee as it were).

 

MQA, as others have stated could be the linch pin, where they can add watermarking etc. into the file. That is not what I want, because that starts their control over where and what I can play. FLAC cannot be watermarked as that is why it was designed - Free Lossless Audio Compression and hence why I use it.

 

Do you know how such a test would work? Who gets to judge and how would one judge music to be superior?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, audiventory said:

I think, these data can not be accepted as reliable proofs. Because it is personal impression and opinion only.

 

 

Is there a scientific way to do figure out what someone likes best?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Even if you do, there remains the question of what "likes best" actually means.  The story of the Pepsi Challenge and New Coke is instructive.

 

That's where I was headed. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I believe some MQA Announcements will be made at the Munich show in May.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Chris,

On January 12, 2017 Robert Harley wrote about the many MQA DACs about to come to market. Three months later it wasn’t happened.  So in less than three weeks there will be some announcements. Well there were supposed to be announcements at T.H.E. Show last year in Irvine, RMAF 2016 and CES 2017 and nothing much happened. So when I write my May update please tell me how many MQA DACs I can have delivered to my office two days after I order one.

 

 

Why don't you ask some manufacturers. 99% of them will tell you they are working on it. 

 

There was huge announcements at CES with respect to content. I expect Munich to be similar. Announcing an MQA DAC really isn't news. 

 

The hold up with hardware releases is the MQA certification. It takes quite a while. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

zero supportable evidence that it's somehow closer to real

 

Regardless if it's MQA or traditional FLAC, how would one find evidence that either is closer to real? Honest question. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have reported several times that DAC manufacturers couldn’t get information about MQA, twice on this site November 6, 2016 and December 23, 2016. MQA was announced in December of 2014 and there are how many manufacturers certified to make MQA DACs? Fourteen manufacturers are certified according to their website which is one every two months. I saw faster turtles on the golf course today.

 

There may have been huge announcements at CES 2017 about MQA content but here we are in late April and we have no content. Let’s say Sony announces they have licensed MQA at Munich. You will be all excited but there will still be no content.

 

As for me asking some manufacturers for this and future discussions you can safely assume my contacts in the audio industry are at least as good as yours in my primary audio agenda item high performance systems costing $3,000 or less, better in the computer industry and better in the music business.

 

More speculation and refusal to see any other side to this. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

????

FLAC doesn't claim any audible changes.

A original pcm file can be measurably compared to a flac coded/decoded file

FLAC is open source software and the code can be read by anyone with the knowledge to read it. We know exactly what is being performed.

 

MQA is none of the above.

But you know all that and much more.

Sorry Chris but as I've pointed out before I find it sad you've put the weight of CA behind supporting MQA and it's digital data lockdown.

This is not what is best for the consumer.

 

 

Evidence of this support please. 

 

I thought you were talking about files being closer to the real thing, as in the actual music. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, andifor said:

 

What question is this? Everybody can create a FLAC and check how close it is. How do you do this vor MQA. Honest question.

 

You can't measure how close any format is to the original performance. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I am confused by this question.

 

Are you asking for "evidence" of the open source nature of FLAC and PCM, of there known mathematical definition and limits, and whether MQA is closed source and not transparent (i.e. a "black box")?  Are you saying these things are not so?

 

Oh no. He said I was using CA to support MQA. I asked for evidence of this support. 

 

I certainly report about MQA and instruct people about its use. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

His regurgitating of MQA marketing material also comes off as somewhat biased. That said, I do commend Chris for allowing critical discussion, something certain other sites do not.

 

When explaining to an eager audience, how a proprietary technology works, the only available information comes from the company. Nothing else I can do. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

You could do nothing.

 

Sure. I could fold CA as well. There's a balance to strike. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Obviously, you are part of the cabal that under Stuart's hypnotic gaze has turned you into another mindless MQA zombie. Eventually, millions like you will be trying to take control, destroying all that is good in audio, sucking the freedom and DRM-hating juices out of heroic audiophiles.  

 

 

Ha! That's too good!

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why do you guys keep saying DRM over and over again when there is no DRM?

 

Some people say MQA contains DRM. 

Some people say MQA contains no DRM. 

MQA Ltd says its product contains no DRM. 

 

Other than that, you can read all the discussions here debating the topic. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Chris,

Just tell me when I can purchase and download the following MQA albums in The Valley of the Sun:

1.       Foghat Foghat

2.       Black Oak Arkansas Black Oak Arkansas

3.       Eagles On the Border

4.       Halestorm Into The Wild

5.       Jackson Browne Running on Empty

6.       Chicago Chicago Transit Authority

They are all available on TIDAL in the US and I believe in Europe for download. Why is my side of MQA so hard for you? I can’t buy MQA albums. It is no harder than that.

 

Your argument is like me saying Tesla is vaporware because I can't purchase one that accepts diesel. MQA is a streaming format first and foremost. Who knows if you'll ever be able to purchase and download any additional format of your music in the future? Maybe the days of purchase and download formats are over. Perhaps we won't see another purchase and download format because FLAC is fine. 

 

Your side of the argument isn't difficult for me to see. I have an open mind. In fact, I see it as my job to see both sides of MQA and try to bring out these arguments for discussion. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Jud speaks to an important point here.  MQA is just a symptom of the disease - not the disease itself.  The "industry" wants MQA (or something like it) NOT for SQ reasons but because of larger, market forces at play and the belief that a MQA-like format change would solve these problems.  

 

Streaming as a threat in the sense that it becomes the only way to consume music is real and is possibly a much larger threat than any DRM/end-to-end/IP/SQ-ruse scheme because consumers are actually fully behind it.

 

This is why I keep returning to that Robert Harley article - it is the only thing I have read (beside from those like Koch who are explicitly anti-MQA) that outlined the market forces behind MQA.  In the end, Robert circled back around to an "MQA is about SQ" position but it was painfully obvious that he contradicted himself.

 

Jud, you should write an blog/article about the threat a streaming-only market is to audiophiledom...

 

4 hours ago, Jud said:

A little surprised that more people aren't seeing the much bigger picture here.

 

MQA has so far contracted with the sixth largest streaming company (if I recall the figures on Tidal correctly), and I don't know who offers MQA downloads at the moment - can anyone tell us?

 

Meanwhile, your ability to hear the music you want is fading into the past due to something a lot of MQA haters are actually in favor of, streaming.  Streaming is, by actual numbers, taking over the marketplace from downloads.  As it does, the availability of artists many of us like but who weren't hugely popular in their day, and the availability of masterings with reasonable DR levels from artists who *were* hugely popular, fades away.  Good luck looking for reasonably priced used CDs at local shops or on eBay, Amazon, etc.

 

But keep on focusing your energy on MQA, guys, I'm sure the music industry is eager to let itself get pwned again by some third party like they did with Apple.

 

 

Perhaps I don't understand the logic. 

 

 

"...your ability to hear the music you want is fading into the past due to something a lot of MQA haters are actually in favor of, streaming."

 

The ability to hear music that was never released on CD, and multiple remasters of the same thing, has never been better because of streaming. I've been listening to a lot of Fleetwood Mac lately. Looking at Tidal, I can listen to many versions of the albums without purchasing anything. It's simple for a label to just throw an album up on a streaming service rather than produce a physical product. 

 

Perhaps I'm not following the logic, but I'm very willing to listen.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

...Chris is "ok" with a fundamental change (say, to cloud based music and all that entails) or is at least stoic about it (i.e. believes that it is inevitable and there is nothing to be done and we should just get used to it)...

 

Hey, don't put words in my mouth :~)

 

If anything, I feel resigned to my fate as a consumer of music. Two of the three largest labels are owned by public companies, while the third one is owned by a holding company. I don't believe we as an industry have any clout or ability to influence without authority. 

 

Maybe I'm feeling a bit negative about it all :~|

[The Computer Audiophile]

If they wanted the rights and there was money to be made, they'd have them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Are you sure Microsoft shut down HDCD? Did this happen recently? I ask because my 3 year old Blu-ray / SACD Universal player decodes HDCDs and Reference Recordings is still releasing HDCDs, including this upcoming release Doug MacLeod: Break The Chain! It is being released on compact disc with HDCD, as high-resolution and conventional downloads and later, as a premium 2-LP set.

 

Anyone can make an HDCD album if they have a Pacific Microsonics Model 1 or 2 analog to digital converter. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I wouldn't worry about CDs or replicating facilities. What you're probably talking about is physical media. In the future that can just as easily be a flash drive if you want to purchase something. or, the artist can offer a download via bandcamp. I think you get to the same place. It's not streaming. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Problem with Bandcamp and similar is not variety but discovery.

 

Compared to what?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Jud said:

 

The current system that provides more publicity by labels.

 

Perhaps I'm a bit dense, if physical CDs go away, why would that change?