MQA is Vaporware

[rickca]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

They also have a majority of users who clamored for it. 

Yeah, the Roon story I believe because lots of Roon users are TIDAL users.  The case for dCS is harder to understand.

[crenca]

Just now, rickca said:

Yeah, the Roon story I believe because lots of Roon users are TIDAL users.  The case for dCS is harder to understand.

 

Which brings up the import of the Tidal MQA link.  What if there was a cost, say $5 or so a month for MQA?  Well, I think the vast majority of those Roon users would be paying.  In other words my sense (from time spent on the forum - I'm a Roon lifetimer as well) is that the majority have if not completely bought into the MQA message, are at least "curious" enough to support it.  Many (most) of them are also typical "subjectivised" audiophiles, and my sense is that they "hear" the alleged advantage of whatever Audiophildom puts in front of them.  In other words Bob S and MQA understand the Audiophile well and have to a real extant succeeded in their mission to sell it, even if there is also real blowback as well...

[james45974]

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Which brings up the import of the Tidal MQA link.  What if there was a cost, say $5 or so a month for MQA?  Well, I think the vast majority of those Roon users would be paying.  In other words my sense (from time spent on the forum - I'm a Roon lifetimer as well) is that the majority have if not completely bought into the MQA message, are at least "curious" enough to support it.  Many (most) of them are also typical "subjectivised" audiophiles, and my sense is that they "hear" the alleged advantage of whatever Audiophildom puts in front of them.  In other words Bob S and MQA understand the Audiophile well and have to a real extant succeeded in their mission to sell it, even if there is also real blowback as well...

But there is that old conceit that the audiophile market means anything in the Big Picture!  Apple recently reported it has passed 50 million subscribers, on its way to catch up with Spotify.  Tidal and Roon are being left in the dust!

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

Roon at least claim that they put a real effort in man hours through their whole MQA implementation from negotiations through to the coding to the end.

That could be just talk. Everybody seems to like boasting about how much effort they've made and how hard it was, no matter what the subject. From what I've seen, adding MQA to a software solution should be pretty straight-forward. Simply take the provided library and plug it into the processing chain like you would any other codec. If it takes more than a man-week, there is something seriously wrong with your overall system architecture. At least I was able to do it with no documentation or assistance whatsoever.

[rickca]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

That could be just talk.

I think you can do MQA quick and dirty or you can do it right.  I get the impression that dCS and Roon took care with their implementation.  Doing it right isn't the same as doing the right thing.  Ayre did the right thing.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

That could be just talk. Everybody seems to like boasting about how much effort they've made and how hard it was, no matter what the subject. From what I've seen, adding MQA to a software solution should be pretty straight-forward. Simply take the provided library and plug it into the processing chain like you would any other codec. If it takes more than a man-week, there is something seriously wrong with your overall system architecture. At least I was able to do it with no documentation or assistance whatsoever.

It is just bullshit to project the message.."dear customer we REALLY care about you and your MQA needs, so we put a LOT of resources and time into getting it RIGHT"...what a crock. If they had any moral compass or back bone they would done what was ACTUALLY good for the customer, which is tell Stuart to take a hike.

[Rt66indierock]

12 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

That there's been, so far, no censure of this post from the man in charge is disappointing. Perhaps it's telling that Chris identifies himself as the "Founder" of CA, without acknowledging any editorial function. On the one hand, he functions as CA's lead reviewer and otherwise curates the content of the site. On the other, he stands off to the side as inflammatory (and, in this case, defamatory) comments are made. It's quite correct for Chris to tout the presence of MQA experts in the CA community but if trolls and other snarky hangers-on overshadow them, their utility to rank-and-file readers is considerably diminished.

 

 

 

Go ahead: accuse me of more "finger-wagging." The silence from the top, in this instance, is deafening.

 

 

Please stick to medicine.  And tell me who angered by these comments and  enlighten me on who being defamed?

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, rickca said:

Yeah, the Roon story I believe because lots of Roon users are TIDAL users.  The case for dCS is harder to understand.

 

The case for dCS is pretty easy. They move so few units that they can't risk any loss of sales. And my research points to them at the beginning of this blur thing.

[shtf]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The case for dCS is pretty easy. They move so few units that they can't risk any loss of sales. And my research points to them at the beginning of this blur thing.

 

I agree that may well be the case.  I'm aware of one manufacturer who held off incorporating MQA into his DAC's and he's glad he did.  He also shared sentiments, much like you suspect with dCS, that other manufacturers he knows felt exactly that way.  They didn't want to incorporate MQA because of their own skeptism but they couldn't afford to risk losing revenue.  And some of these manufacturers are relatively small and wouldn't take much of a hit to go outta business.

 

For me, it's just one more reason to try to view MQA for what it and especially for what it isn't.

[asdf1000]

7 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I am no saying there is not a forth-coming announcement, I was just under the impression Munich would be the venue.

 

Chris said he's heard something about a very large and very wealthy company.

 

Such a company wouldn't/couldn't care less about Munich (and the 1% like us that follow Munich announcements).

 

To be honest, if MQA Ltd have their sights on massive contracts like the one Chris has heard may come, they will probably stop reading and caring about this thread and similar, to focus on 'securing the bag'.

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=secure the bag

 

 

[shtf]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

I struggle to see what in that post is deserving of censure. Someone provides an opinion / hypothesis and calls is his suspicion, yet you believe it should be censured? I believe the old guard press has much different rules than we do here at CA. This community prefers to error on the side of letting people voice opinions and lay out their suspicions, leaving everyone to judge for themselves if s/he buys it or thinks it's BS. 

 

When the initial MQA discussion started here on CA and some of the experts here raised their hands saying something doesn't look right, many people wanted the discussion censured. I received a few phone calls from Bob S. about the discussions and I know he would've loved to see a heavy hand used in moderation. That's not how we, or the internet work now days. 

 

 

 

 

 

Your response is very much appreciated.  Thank you.  But I admit I was rather surprised Quint made that comment and that early on you had received a few phone calls from Stuart.  Then again, not really.  And it sure doesn't hurt my suspicions much. 

 

Thanks again.

 

p.s. I'm quite new to CA and still don't know my way around much.  But my respect for and impressions of CA just went up a really good notch.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

And tell me who angered by these comments and  enlighten me on who being defamed?

 

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that Stuart, Atkinson, and Harley are the ones being defamed.

Conspiracy theories are a phenomenon that I find interesting, and shtf's posting was a pretty classic example. In a 2014 book, two political scientists, Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent defined a conspiracy theory as describing  "(1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, hide truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good" and shtf's "opinion" as to how MQA came to be certainly meets those criteria. It's an excellent example of what's been called a "shallow" theory. The question asked is Cui bono? (Who benefits?) The theorist reaches the conclusion that the group of people having something to gain from MQA—BS, JA, and RH—must be secretly involved in a vast and nefarious plot.

 

Shtf made up his theory out of thin air—I think we know that he has no hard evidence for what he suggests actually happened—but the internet is a funny thing. The theory will be repeated and can potentially gain acceptance as fact. Certainly, this has happened with other more substantive issues, like Obama's birthplace or the 1969 moon landing. Hey, this is only audio. But audio's important to me, as I know it is to you. I have stated on several occasions that I feel the substantive points made regarding MQA in the thread that you started, and elsewhere, are valid and important—I have "listened and learned," as another CA partisan recommended. Over-the-top theories, such as the one offered here are understandable: They represent the level of frustration and loss of control that some audiophiles are feeling. But, ultimately, they undermine the more solidly reasoned arguments against MQA and should be identified as fringe thinking.

[firedog]

14 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

That there's been, so far, no censure of this post from the man in charge is disappointing. Perhaps it's telling that Chris identifies himself as the "Founder" of CA, without acknowledging any editorial function. On the one hand, he functions as CA's lead reviewer and otherwise curates the content of the site. On the other, he stands off to the side as inflammatory (and, in this case, defamatory) comments are made. It's quite correct for Chris to tout the presence of MQA experts in the CA community but if trolls and other snarky hangers-on overshadow them, their utility to rank-and-file readers is considerably diminished.

 

 

 

Go ahead: accuse me of more "finger-wagging." The silence from the top, in this instance, is deafening.

 

 

I don't agree with the post or the tone, but I see no reason for it to be banned. 

But Robert Harley writes an article comparing MQA to a scientific revolution on the level with Copernicus  and you don't object to that, do you?

 

It was probably one of the most ignorant things I've ever read, dressed up as some sophisticated piece on the philosophy and development of science. Pitiful and intellectually dishonest by him. Buy you're okay with that.

[Fokus]

11 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

But, ultimately, they undermine the more solidly reasoned arguments against MQA and should be identified as fringe thinking.

 

 

Indeed.

 

[Brinkman Ship]

18 minutes ago, firedog said:

I don't agree with the post or the tone, but I see no reason for it to be banned. 

But Robert Harley writes an article comparing MQA to a scientific revolution on the level with Copernicus  and you don't object to that, do you?

 

It was probably one of the most ignorant things I've ever read, dressed up as some sophisticated piece on the philosophy and development of science. Pitiful and intellectually dishonest by him. Buy you're okay with that.

indeed.

[Brinkman Ship]

13 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Indeed.

 

nonsense.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that Stuart, Atkinson, and Harley are the ones being defamed.

Conspiracy theories are a phenomenon that I find interesting, and shtf's posting was a pretty classic example. In a 2014 book, two political scientists, Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent defined a conspiracy theory as describing  "(1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, hide truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good" and shtf's "opinion" as to how MQA came to be certainly meets those criteria. It's an excellent example of what's been called a "shallow" theory. The question asked is Cui bono? (Who benefits?) The theorist reaches the conclusion that the group of people having something to gain from MQA—BS, JA, and RH—must be secretly involved in a vast and nefarious plot.

 

 

 

Shtf made up his theory out of thin air—I think we know that he has no hard evidence for what he suggests actually happened—but the internet is a funny thing. The theory will be repeated and can potentially gain acceptance as fact. Certainly, this has happened with other more substantive issues, like Obama's birthplace or the 1969 moon landing. Hey, this is only audio. But audio's important to me, as I know it is to you. I have stated on several occasions that I feel the substantive points made regarding MQA in the thread that you started, and elsewhere, are valid and important—I have "listened and learned," as another CA partisan recommended. Over-the-top theories, such as the one offered here are understandable: They represent the level of frustration and loss of control that some audiophiles are feeling. But, ultimately, they undermine the more solidly reasoned arguments against MQA and should be identified as fringe thinking.

 

You think the conspiracy theory should be censored but you think some of the old guard’s articles that push falsehoods as facts are OK?

 

Which one is causing more damage or misleading more people

 

1) A post on CA where one person lays out his suspicion (that you easily disregarded due to your elevated level of intelligence that the rest of the internet may not have)

 

or

 

2) Old guard print articles calling MQA the best thing to ever happen in digital and repeating falsehoods?

 

 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You think the conspiracy theory should be censored but you think some of the old guard’s articles that push falsehoods as facts are OK?

 

Which one is causing more damage or misleading more people

 

1) A post on CA where one person lays out his suspicion (that you easily disregarded due to your elevated level of intelligence that the rest of the internet may not have)

 

or

 

2) Old guard print articles calling MQA the best thing to ever happen in digital and repeating falsehoods?

 

I did not suggest that shtf's post be censored, as in removing it from site. I feel that the post should be censured, in the sense of calling it out for what it is.

 

For 16 months and 341 pages, "MQA is Vaporware" has made a cogent and fact-based case regarding the technology, culminating in Archimago's summation. As noted previously, I myself learned plenty about the theoretical concerns and feel I have a more balanced view of MQA, whatever its eventual fate in the marketplace. Given this solid and informed (I would never say "dispassionate"!) body of work and correspondence, I don't see why a fantasy such as shtf's is necessary. And why other informed commenters, including you, don't see a need to identify it as a conspiracy theory with no factual basis?

 

I think I know the answer to that. Despite wishful-thinking sorts of asides over the past 16 months to the effect that MQA is failing, it's possible it isn't. To the partisans on this site, this is immensely frustrating: Despite their efforts to present their view of the truth, the beast continues to establish itself. Conspiracy theories emerge because those who promulgate them feel a loss of control and maybe the latest MQA news items are not encouraging to them.

 

So here's a theory of my own regarding you, Chris. Though I don't think there's been any question about where you stood on the subject of MQA since it emerged as an audio flashpoint several years ago, you have maintained a degree of equity in your public commentary. Now you sound like the more aggressive MQA opponents on CA, vilifying individuals and publications as if their take on the technology is fully representative of everything they've ever undertaken. Could that be because of the still-unrevealed industry news that you're sitting on? Does this further loss of control disinhibit even you, who has had a far higher threshold for disinhibition for quite some time? I don't know—we'll see what the news is.

 

This is probably a good time for me to bow out of this CA thread. We're well past the point of generating more heat than light. I've been able to make the points I wanted to make in a more acutely engaged fashion than I did in my two TAS editorials that addressed the subject of Internet comity in the context of MQA. Traditionally, the most committed participants on this thread have celebrated the departure of (what they view as) a foe with glee. Go ahead—imagine you've vanquished another one. I'll still be out here, listening and learning. Keep in mind, please, that I'm not an MQA-partisan, not at all. Remember me as the finger-wagging guy who tried to find some common ground within the increasingly polarized audiophile tribe. I'd still like to see that happen, though my hopes at this particular audiophile moment are not high.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

[mjb]

If there's anything that 16 months and 342 pages of "MQA is Vaporware" has shown, is that it isn't.

[crenca]

7 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Conspiracy theories are a phenomenon that I find interesting, and shtf's posting was a pretty classic example. In a 2014 book, two political scientists, Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent defined a conspiracy theory as describing  "(1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, hide truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good" and shtf's "opinion" as to how MQA came to be certainly meets those criteria. It's an excellent example of what's been called a "shallow" theory. The question asked is Cui bono? (Who benefits?)

 

Hey that is a good definition of IP and DRM, at least from a consumers point of view. Sure it is all legal conspiracy, morally acceptable, and in a free market perhaps even somewhat necessary, but is nonetheless against the consumers common good.

 

But you just keep going on and blaming the consumer for not playing the old guard "high end" game and by do so by definition "defaming" those of you in the old guard...

[adamdea]

8 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Indeed.

 

I agree, that is the grown up response; but there is something rather fun in watching professional horseshit-peddlars come unstuck in a debate with amateurs.

Ok, I should grow up. Also sadly memetic natural selection does not privilege truth

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I don't see why a fantasy such as shtf's is necessary. And why other informed commenters, including you, don't see a need to identify it as a conspiracy theory with no factual basis?

Because everyone around here is 100% capable of seeing all comments for what they are and weeding out BS. Just as you deemed it a conspiracy theory, I'm sure others are equally as capable of making up their own minds. We don't have a Minister of Information around here. 

 

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

So here's a theory of my own regarding you, Chris. Though I don't think there's been any question about where you stood on the subject of MQA since it emerged as an audio flashpoint several years ago, you have maintained a degree of equity in your public commentary. Now you sound like the more aggressive MQA opponents on CA, vilifying individuals and publications as if their take on the technology is fully representative of everything they've ever undertaken. Could that be because of the still-unrevealed industry news that you're sitting on? Does this further loss of control disinhibit even you, who has had a far higher threshold for disinhibition for quite some time? I don't know—we'll see what the news is.

 

Proof or it didn't happen. Where have I vilified individuals and publications? I've called it as I see it and I've relayed personal stories (although I've held back more information from phone calls that would probably leave you in disbelief). 

 

I don't act or not act based on some industry news I may have. I receive information from people who have a whole lot or very little to do with MQA and I try to decide what's real, what's made up, and what deserves publication. I recently heard something so surprising that I'm trying to back it up with other sources. Trust me, if I can back this up, it isn't good news for MQA. This is the opposite of the other news that I hinted at that would be great for MQA. 

 

I don't fear any loss of control because I don't have any control. I provide a platform for all sides. I've given everyone on Earth the space to write for or against MQA in the most transparent manner possible. Heck, when I removed some MQA posts early on, I told people before it was done and I told them after what posts were removed (I feared some intellectual property was reverse engineered and made public). In other words, it's hard to lose control that I never had. This is a community. 

 

With respect to my disinhibition, I don't really see that. I must remain neutral. Otherwise I fear the messages will be seen as tainted. If I come out against MQA, the proponents will say I'm trying to control the narrative. The same goes for being anti MQA. If anything, I'm usually seen as pro MQA by many in this community because I frequently push people to give objective information without speculation. I also understand it's impossible without access to the real IP.

 

Given your stance on speculation and theories, I should censure your post correct? A theory without any evidence to back it up. Fortunately for everyone involved, we leave people's posts out here so there's a history or pattern of behavior that all can see and by which to judge future comments. If someone claims the US never landed on the Moon, then claims 9/11 was an inside job, it's great to be able to go back and read their claim about the moon to put it in perspective. 

 

Have a little faith in the CA Community that we're all fairly smart and can decide for ourselves what to believe. So far, MQA has declined to refute @Archimago's article and told me that the original MQA Q&A already answered all the questions. Well, I talked to several engineers since the publishing of the article and absolutely none of them agree that MQA has answered the issues. 

 

In Munich I talked to countless engineers who all brought up the MQA article on their own during our discussions. Everyone of them said the article is 100% correct and that MQA has no answers. The engineers were with companies for and against MQA, some of them under MQA NDA. All of this was unsolicited as well. Either Bob S is way smarter than all of HiFi and all living or dead engineers, or something fishy is going on.

 

As I told Bob is our phone conversation before I published Archimago's article, if as Bob says the article simply isn't factual, I'd love nothing more than to provide the factual evidence to refute Archimago's claims. I also believe Archimago would love to see this type of evidence published as he has no grudge. It would be awesome for site traffic if I could provide the information that made the anti-MQA audience look foolish. However, this evidence doesn't exist and the anti-MQA audience is the one making MQA look foolish.

 

 

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

This is probably a good time for me to bow out of this CA thread. ...Traditionally, the most committed participants on this thread have celebrated the departure of (what they view as) a foe with glee. Go ahead—imagine you've vanquished another one. I'll still be out here, listening and learning. Keep in mind, please, that I'm not an MQA-partisan, not at all. Remember me as the finger-wagging guy who tried to find some common ground within the increasingly polarized audiophile tribe. I'd still like to see that happen, though my hopes at this particular audiophile moment are not high.

 

You can attempt to write your own thread eulogy to control the narrative but that isn't how the internet works. 

 

 

[HalSF]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I recently heard something so surprising that I'm trying to back it up with other sources. Trust me, if I can back this up, it isn't good news for MQA. This is the opposite of the other news that I hinted at that would be great for MQA. 

Currently experiencing severe cliffhanger anxiety. 

[botrytis]

@ARQuint I have been searching the inter-web for more information on MQA,  besides the platitudes found on the audiophile press sites. Most of the information I found, which was balanced was Archimago. No one else that has published anything on MQA has the questioning and honesty to say, maybe I am wrong, show me. That gives even more credence. Why? It is because that is what good science and scientists do. They question to have other to prove or disprove their ideas, they don't say 'You can't possibly understand because you are not Mr.X'. Well, I have shown other scientists wrong before and I didn't want to do that but nothing else made logical sense to me, on the work I was doing. Same can be said here. All we get from the other side is platitudes and condescension. 

 

Well from the reactions, I have seen from the Pro-MQA side, all they have is platitudes and condescension. That just means to me they are either hiding something, they do not really understand what they are hawking, they assume buddies wouldn't sell them the Brooklyn Bridge. I honestly think it is all three.

[charlesphoto]

16 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Which brings up the import of the Tidal MQA link.  What if there was a cost, say $5 or so a month for MQA?  Well, I think the vast majority of those Roon users would be paying.  In other words my sense (from time spent on the forum - I'm a Roon lifetimer as well) is that the majority have if not completely bought into the MQA message, are at least "curious" enough to support it.  Many (most) of them are also typical "subjectivised" audiophiles, and my sense is that they "hear" the alleged advantage of whatever Audiophildom puts in front of them.  In other words Bob S and MQA understand the Audiophile well and have to a real extant succeeded in their mission to sell it, even if there is also real blowback as well...

 

Roon/Tidal user here and I could care less about MQA. So far most I’ve heard sucks the life out of music compared to 16/44, a bit like upsampling to DSD (for me). If it’s only available in MQA then that’s another matter, and is what it is. Sounds like Tidal have much bigger fish to fry at the moment than MQA anyway. if they don’t then it’s going to be a moot point as it is.