MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

On 2/24/2018 at 2:57 AM, Confused said:

I did wander around the whole show and visited about 90% of the demo rooms, and not one MQA logo or demo did I see.

 

Thats encouraging news, MQA stillborn?

 

 

[rn701]

300+ pages later, just wanted to comment on the thread title.

 

Vaporware, back in the day, referred to announced products that were never delivered, and sometimes never intended to be delivered for various reasons.

 

MQA exists, so it isn't technically vaporware.

 

A better term would be "snake oil." Or more appropriately in the current vernacular, "malware."

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, rn701 said:

300+ pages later, just wanted to comment on the thread title.

 

Vaporware, back in the day, referred to announced products that were never delivered, and sometimes never intended to be delivered for various reasons.

 

MQA exists, so it isn't technically vaporware.

 

A better term would be "snake oil." Or more appropriately in the current vernacular, "malware."

 

Actually the term was coined by two guys at Microsoft about Xenix in 1982. The market share of Xenix at the time was 0.25%. I was there at the time and am using this historical (the first) definition rounded to 10,000. Note nobody has come up with a credible number of albums close to 10,000 for MQA yet.

 

In any case there seems to be too much momentum behind "MQA is Vaporware" to stop for now. The term vaporware itself applies pressure on the people I want to apply pressure on.

[eclectic]

I suggest a change of title to "Lee Scoggins is vaporware". 

 

Where is he? I'm anxiously waiting for him to post details of his MQA "research". He promised he'd do that.

 

To tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kind of lost track myself...

[Shadders]

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, eclectic said:

I suggest a change of title to "Lee Scoggins is vaporware". 

 

Where is he? I'm anxiously waiting for him to post details of his MQA "research". He promised he'd do that.

 

To tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kind of lost track myself...

 

Dalethorn actually has  a link - to his supposed testing of MQA on 'MQA Conceptualized' on Stereophile.

 

http://dalethorn.com/Audio_MQA_Notes.pdf

 

It is just listening, nothing useful for the discussion.

[Rt66indierock]

48 minutes ago, eclectic said:

I suggest a change of title to "Lee Scoggins is vaporware". 

 

Where is he? I'm anxiously waiting for him to post details of his MQA "research". He promised he'd do that.

 

To tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kind of lost track myself...

 

The OP operates under a basic load. About 210 rounds. With an AR-15  think more along the lines of 900 rounds. Never lose track that way.

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

Dalethorn actually has  a link - to his supposed testing of MQA on 'MQA Conceptualized' on Stereophile.

 

http://dalethorn.com/Audio_MQA_Notes.pdf

 

It is just listening, nothing useful for the discussion.

 

Nothing Dale does is useful for discussion.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Indydan said:

 

Nothing Dale does is useful for discussion.

 

HE THINKS it is. Many on the Pro-MQA side are the same way.

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

HE THINKS it is. Many on the Pro-MQA side are the same way.

 

He started a thread over on WBF called "MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) - Better Sound or DRM?". It can best be described as a facepalm moment. Even after being corrected by Mans he hasn't acknowledged how wrong he is.

[skikirkwood]

Has anyone looked at the Wikipedia article on Meridian, the MQA part specifically?

 

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

 

I think the article is in need of some editing to make it more accurate. I have a Wikipedia account, guess I could take the first crack at it.

[Indydan]

Edit

[Vincent1234]

On 18-1-2018 at 10:50 PM, FredericV said:

I believe this is per design, to cripple redbook more.

If you're paranoid this is probably true. ? In real life my dCS has no such thing as screwing up regular non-MQA files by applying the specific MQA filtering for those files too. In practice MQA does sound easily better than Redbook, at least when streamed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Vincent1234 said:

If you're paranoid this is probably true. ? In real life my dCS has no such thing as screwing up regular non-MQA files by applying the specific MQA filtering for those files too. In practice MQA does sound easily better than Redbook, at least when streamed.

Speaking of dCS, I have a Rossini right now and I can confirm that what nobody thought was possible is most certainly possible. When I play MQA music, I can select any of the dCS filters that I wish. The user isn't forced to use the MQA filter. But, I don't know of any other DACs, outside of dCS, on which this is possible.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Speaking of dCS, I have a Rossini right now and I can confirm that what nobody thought was possible is most certainly possible. When I play MQA music, I can select any of the dCS filters that I wish. The user isn't forced to use the MQA filter. But, I don't know of any other DACs, outside of dCS, on which this is possible.

Are you sure the setting actually has an effect on MQA playback?

[rickca]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Speaking of dCS, I have a Rossini right now and I can confirm that what nobody thought was possible is most certainly possible. When I play MQA music, I can select any of the dCS filters that I wish. The user isn't forced to use the MQA filter. But, I don't know of any other DACs, outside of dCS, on which this is possible.

So dCS got MQA to throw in the towel on enforcing MQA filters?  What does dCS do with the filter selection information in the MQA stream if you are not using the MQA filters?  Are you saying that Berkeley did not do what dCS has done?

 

This makes a mockery of the whole MQA end-to-end story unless I misunderstand something.

 

What sounds best to you with MQA material?  One of the dCS filters or the MQA filters?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

So dCS got MQA to throw in the towel on enforcing MQA filters?  What does dCS do with the filter selection information in the MQA stream if you are not using the MQA filters?  Are you saying that Berkeley did not do what dCS has done?

 

This makes a mockery of the whole MQA end-to-end story unless I misunderstand something.

 

What sounds best to you with MQA material?  One of the dCS filters or the MQA filters?

No matter what content is playing, I can select any of the dCS filters as long as they are for the correct format (PCM or DSD). For example, I can listen to an MQA track and select any of the following filters:

 

Filter 1
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Filter 6
Filter M1

 

M1 is the MQA filter. I can even select the MQA filter for nonMQA content if I wish.

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are you sure the setting actually has an effect on MQA playback?

I can hear the filters changing when I change them (a little tick). But, I don't have objective measurements.

[rickca]

Well, now it's a little clearer that dCS did not buy into the MQA end-to-end story.  So with your Berkeley Alpha Reference Series 2, you have to use the MQA filter with MQA material?

[Brinkman Ship]

I have seen a few posts on other forums that in Stereophile's new issue, they "As We See It" opening column may be the first

hedge against MQA they have published in almost 4 years, written by Jon Iverson.

 

Anyone with the issue, feel free to corroborate.

[labjr]

9 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I have seen a few posts on other forums that in Stereophile's new issue, they "As We See It" opening column may be the first

hedge against MQA they have published in almost 4 years, written by Jon Iverson.

 

Anyone with the issue, feel free to corroborate.

 

I haven't received the April issue yet. However JA said they would go into "deblurring" without the lossy compression which many have asked about. I figured there would be an excuse as to why it's not technically possible or even needed. Maybe I'm wrong.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Didn’t the April issue come out in January?

 

:~)

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Didn’t the April issue come out in January?

Seems like it to me.  That's when we write it.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Didn’t the April issue come out in January?

 

:~)

 

They probably mean whatever issue comes out in April, which is probably the October 2022 issue... ?

[rando]

So much ire towards anything to do with a first unfold.  The sociological conditioning is worthy of study.