MQA is Vaporware

[james45974]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

I am struck most by their sheer naivete.  They are still (still, how many years is it?) grappling with the digital revolution in music.  They don't know the difference between a piece of software and a strand of copper cable.  They are reinforced by an "Old Guard" customer base that don't know the difference either, and who show up at audio shows to be spooned fed complete and utter nonsense. 

Maybe some of the old guard show go to a headphone meet, that seems to be where all the action is lately!

 

going to shows full of 6 digit equipment seems to have all the fun and alure of the early dinner at Applebee's, with the same crowd.

[james45974]

13 hours ago, esldude said:

Well I don't have Tidal.  My meager internet connection would be near saturated by Tidal streaming at least half of every day.  Part of the other half when I get higher speeds unfortunately is when I (and apparently everyone else in the area) is asleep.  

Streaming is basically a no-go for me too.  I am stuck with a satellite internet connection here, not great for streaming.

 

The telcos are all about making things better for the haves than providing anything for the have not's!  I am not in a far out rural area but one mile and 12 potential customers within that mile is not enough for Spectrum (awful company) to extend their cable lines.  I am in a dead cell zone currently and I am hoping that there is some promise for service with 5G on the horizon.

[james45974]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

If you can manage more or less line of sight, you could share a line with someone who has good internet.  Those devices I linked to earlier provide a good fast connection up to several miles.  A pair of them would be about $140.  They are not large being 10x14 inches.  

 

I'm also doubly lucky being in a cell phone near dead zone.  I can sometimes make a call.  Data is usually not possible.  I mounted a WeBoost cell phone booster on the side of the house.  This amplifies and rebroadcasts the signal indoors and amplifies my phone signal to talk back to the cell tower.  This way I get good connections and data speeds inside.  This works if you have a weak signal.  If you have a total lack of signal it won't work.  

 

This is the particular model I have though they make others.

 

https://www.amazon.com/weBoost-470101-Signal-Booster-Office/dp/B00RHMFQSA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1528740142&sr=8-3&keywords=weboost+470101

 

Thanks for the info!   I have zero cell service at my house, inside or outside.  Using Antenna Search there are 13 registered towers within 4 miles of my house, I assume not all are cell towers, but anyway I get nothing.

 

I will check the new thread that has started so as not to hijack this thread!

[james45974]

7 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Maybe of interest :

 

Tidal’s hi-res Masters (MQA) tracks surpass one million

https://www.whathifi.com/news/tidals-hi-res-masters-tracks-surpass-one-million

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

and all of them artist approved!

[james45974]

4 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Is MQA dead yet?

This whole MQA thing has been become very uninteresting.  There is nothing but marketing puffery inflating minor steps as major advancements!  

[james45974]

interesting editorial at Enjoy The Music .com

 

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0219/Lossless_Streaming_Music_Welcome_To_20_Years_Ago.htm

[james45974]

I don't have an MQA capable DAC and frankly MQA doesn't interest me but I have a question.  When you play MQA through Tidal for instance is there any kind of tag that shows who "authenticated" the files?  I would think that to be somewhat of a "purist" that only tracks authenticated by the original ARTIST are truly authenticated.  Anything else is somewhat of a bastardized version of "authentication".  Who cares if the the engineer or producer or custodian "authenticated" the track.

[james45974]

52 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Exactly the case. With the Stereophile recordings, while I always get the artists' input and approval for the mix and balance, etc, as I am the one who has bankrolled every project other than the most recent, "Tight Lines," I make the final decision for every aspect of the recording.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Owner, Stereophile Recordings

Thanks John, I guess I'm not really sure of the value of MQA authentication then.  I'm sorry if this is getting very basic, I thought I understood the general idea of MQA, but what does "Authentication" actually mean?  Isn't there some sort of "authentication" going on with any master and subsequent vinyl pressing, CD, or streaming file already?

[james45974]

13 hours ago, firedog said:

I corrected him in the comments and will continue to do so. It really is scandalous that he continues to write this. It's exactly the type of thing that JA and the others at Stereophile seem to be oblivious to when  they seem not to understand why their publications and writings aren't held in the highest esteem here. 

Where is the new editor??   Isn't it part of an editors job to correct things like this? 

[james45974]

46 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23384569

I think I get the general gist of the paper but can someone translate the results for post radiation for a non-scientific mind such as my own!  Thanks! ☺️

[james45974]

“MQA is a consumer-centric technology company, driven by a commitment to deliver the master recording all the way through to the music fan, wherever and however they choose to listen.."

 

MQA stating this does not make it so, their actions speak much louder than words about how anti-consumer they are.

[james45974]

I don't see the lynch mob here, just guys who aren't content being lead around blind by MQA fluffery and who are passionate about it.  Maybe Resistance would be a better name than lynch mob.

 

To my knowledge there has still been no verifiable comparison of every day recordings of the same verified master with and without MQA by MQA, don't you wonder why?  If its so great you think they would be all-hands-on-deck showing that instead of avoiding comparisons.

 

Finally, I am of the opinion that the only entity who should be doing any authentication is the original musical artist, not the producer, mixer, engineer, bean counter, cafeteria lady, or Universal librarian.  To that end I would not trust any "MQA" of deceased artists.

[james45974]

13 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

Show some character. Provide evidence or delete your post. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

And Stereophile is "Lily White"!  😒

[james45974]

37 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

When there is proof shown, on this forum and others, that MQA is not what you or MQA claim and then turn around and say we are defaming you? I find it disheartening that Stereophile and others in the audio press still push this sham that is MQA. It is not enough that you repost the lies and nonsense MQA posted in their marketing ads (almost word for word too), but the Audio magazines seem to be doubling down on it. For what purpose?

Nothing has ever been proven but the term historically related to the recording industry "Payola" frequently comes into my head!

[james45974]

I believe that what we are seeing regarding MQA from John A, Jim A, and evidently from Robert H are the last sounds from old guard dinosaurs on the inevitable march to extinction.  They want to go out with a scream rather than a whimper.

 

Back when print was all we had you controlled the narrative.  These days once you publish an article it is open season for critics all over the internet, and you don't like it, you've lost control.

 

To echo a few posters, you don't like the MQA analysis by certain people so you go after them, not their analysis.  Shows real integrity on your part!

[james45974]

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Just as it is harmful to proper discussion for folks to obsess over motives and alleged corruption, I think it is harmful to proper discussion to side-step the clear technical questions about MQA. If you want the specific line of criticism of the "old guard"/establishment audiophile press to stop, you're going to have to stop that side-stepping.

The more this drags on I wonder if the side-stepping is unconscious, they may be incapable of interacting on a technical level.  The saying "book smart, common sense dumb" comes to mind.

[james45974]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Interesting how JA uses refers to this issue as "this problem", yet his publication did not say it was a problem as such, they just noted it...in the context of Stereophiles otherwise breathless promotion...so a reader would read this qualification in the positive and not negative.

 

That said, JA and the rest have truly dug themselves a hole and they are going to mine their current and past promotion of MQA for anything that can be interpreted as them reporting a "con" to MQA.  It won't work, there is too little there...

Until they decide to come clean they are in a lose, lose, lose position

[james45974]

59 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Thanks for the article.  The article states that "many people who will never be able to buy these products still want to read about them."  That seems to be the conventional wisdom. However, It's definitely not true for me.  I'm wondering if there are any studies to support it.  As far as car mags go, I may read the car mags that deal with the same stuff I'll deal with in real life -- seems to me only young kids stare at unobtanium.

I second this.  I gave up my subscriptions to Stereophile and TAS about 10 years ago and never looked back, I outgrew them.  Now I am more interested in minimalist audio, not maximalist.  MQA just adds unnecessary gobbledygook to audio.

[james45974]

3 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

Well, then there's that! Of course you're correct. And it seems almost too good to be true -- and free! But in this case, it does all it says it does -- and that's a lot! (But there isn't the magic and mystery behind it that the writers who latched on to MQA seemed to adore so much.)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC

 

Doug Schneider

The key about FLAC as opposed to MQA is the concept of "royalty free licensing"

[james45974]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

More on the provenance "issue" - I'm working my contacts and doing research to prove or disprove my hypothesis that this whole provenance thing, as defined by MQA, is a problem that doesn't exist. 

 

So far "nobody" believes this is an issue. I say nobody becasue I'm sure there are a couple releases every year that are messed up. The following link from TuneCore explains that they require 16/44.1 WAV files. Sure this doesn't prohibit someone form converting an MP3 to WAV for upload, but we shouldn't get lost in the edge case weeds. 

 

https://www.tunecore.com/guides/how-to-get-your-audio-files-ready-for-distribution

My curious mind is wondering whether this new tack by MQA is a round about way of supporting Tidal in reaction to the latest moves by Amazon and Qobuz in the streaming business.  Face it, MQA is less than zero without Tidal, and Roon is pretty tangled up in there too.  Tidal may be in a big hurt and Roon has become kind of stale as of late.