MQA is Vaporware

[kumakuma]

10 minutes ago, psjug said:

You mean like this http://www.jimaustin.org/

 

Loved this paragraph from his CV:

 

Quote

Valedictorian, Ft. Pierce Central High School (1982). I hope it’s not too tacky to
include high school, but the temptation is strong when you were (by far) the best
student in a class of 500+.

 

I won't comment on the irony of a professional writer whose resume contains a number of glaring typos. 

[wdw]

39 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Sorry, I forgot about your objectivity. 

 

Jim,

This is a demeaning statement that you haven’t earned the right to make.   

Who in TF are you other than a guy who is employed by a magazine.  You have this sense of hurt and unjust treatment that suggests something narcissistic and is somewhat curious.

 

 

[shtf]

16 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I think it is important we all realize that once Atkinson reported on the "Birth Of A New World "(the introduction of MQA was equated with introduction of the CD) and that his "socks were blown off" there was no going back. To back track from that would have been humiliating. Hence, the agenda was set...

 

... and the 3-legged race horse was outta' the barn and they called it Secretariat, er, um...  MQA.

[Jim Austin]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It wasn’t a comparison. 

 

Analogy? Whatever it was, it was strange. 

[Jim Austin]

8 minutes ago, wdw said:

This is a demeaning statement that you haven’t earned the right to make.   

 

That's a matter of opinion. 

9 minutes ago, wdw said:

Who in TF are you other than a guy who is employed by a magazine.

 

Not employed. I freelance. I employ myself. 

[Jim Austin]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I won't comment on the irony of a professional writer whose resume contains a number of glaring typos.

 

If I'm ever on the job market, I promise I'll fix it, OK? 

If you find a typo in my published work, let me know. I take that very seriously. 

[Jim Austin]

My work here is done. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

28 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

They can join:

 

DCC, Mini Disc, DAT, DVD-A, HDCD, and, last but not least, 8 Track in the scrap heap.

 

It would be nice if MQA could be dismissed this way ie I hope you are right. However the promise of the MQA stamp (my word) making existing standard PCM sound better, even without using MQA hardware (decoding) is far more potentially insidious. I cringe at the prospect of needing to replace my library with MQA treated files. This presumes IF it does *actually* sound better.

[Brinkman Ship]

14 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

... and the 3-legged race horse was outta' the barn and they called it Secretariat, er, um...  MQA.

I believe the author of this thread is writing an article on the marketing of MQA..

 

It would be interesting to see a timeline how how the two mags operated..

 

they first touted the

 

-bandwidth saving

-de-blurring

-time domain correction-

-"authentication"

 

when all of this was debunked, they then shifted to subjectively preferring MQA encoded files...

 

btw, the amount of misinformation they were responsible is staggering..

 

John Atkinson-

 

Archimago wrote: 

When you say "smaller even than the 16/44.1 version on the CD release", can you tell us what is the size of the FLAC compressed version of this 16/44.1 on the CD compared to the same FLAC compressed MQA (same FLAC settings of course)? The CD filesize is around 50% of MQA, right? 

I don't have a FLAC version of "Amazing Grace" but the ALAC version is 26.6MB compared with the uncompressed CD file's 55.7MB, the original 24/88k2 file's 169.5MB, and the MQA-encoded FLAC version's 51.5MB. Of course the MQA file is larger than the ALAC file because it is 24-bit data compared with the CD's 16-bit data.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa#IUQ23cPLluWkctc2.99

 

I believe that this time-domain behavior is responsible for the superb sound quality I heard at the Meridian dem.

 

As MQA needs to be applied at the mastering stage in a recording's production, it doesn't improve the sound quality of your existing CD collection. It is really only relevant to downloads.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa#2h2wtGqiVQHBktc3.99

 

 

 

[beetlemania]

3 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

Thanks for listening with your ears. 

 

Oh, the irony. MQA for chumps.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It would be nice if MQA could be dismissed this way ie I hope you are right. However the promise of the MQA stamp (my word) making existing standard PCM sound better, even without using MQA hardware (decoding) is far more potentially insidious. I cringe at the prospect of needing to replace my library with MQA treated files. This presumes IF it does *actually* sound better.

"I cringe at the prospect of needing to replace my library with MQA treated files. This presumes IF it does *actually* sound better."

 

No need to cringe. It does not. Your wallet is safe.

[beetlemania]

4 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

My work here is done. 

 

As is the waning credibility I had in Stereophile.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Brinkman Ship said:

"I cringe at the prospect of needing to replace my library with MQA treated files. This presumes IF it does *actually* sound better."

 

No need to cringe. It does not. Your wallet is safe.

 

But that's part of the marketing hype,that even ordinary PCM treated files sound better, is it not? It's the 'got something for everyone' aspect that makes it unlike a purely niche new format like DVD-A or DSD.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

But that's part of the marketing hype,that even ordinary PCM treated files sound better, is it not? It's the 'got something for everyone' aspect that makes it unlike a purely niche new format like DVD-A or DSD.

...and why would you pay attention to the marketing lies, err, I mean hype?

[kumakuma]

18 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

My work here is done. 

 

Yes, but what did you accomplish? 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, Brinkman Ship said:

...and why would you pay attention to the marketing lies, err, I mean hype?

 

Not me. Its about potential market penetration for the general public.The general public is not interested enough in SQ to replace CD with DVDA. If something promises to make everything sound better including all their existing collection, that is far more appealing.

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Not me. Its about potential market penetration for the general public.The general public is not interested enough in SQ to replace CD with DVDA. If something promises to make everything sound better including all their existing collection, that is far more appealing.

I appreciate your line of thought..but the mass market is not concerned one iota with better quality. Apple, primarily, and other companies have made lossy downloads and streams into "standard" quality.  People are not only unaware there is a term known as lossless, they don't know what the sample rate of a Redbook Cd is, and they would not know a bit from a butt.

 

That is just the way it is.

[Jim Austin]

45 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Oh, the irony. MQA for chumps.

 

I can't resist replying to this, even though I said I was done. I'm happy you've read some (or one) of my older audio writings. Your mistake (if I may presume what you were getting at) is in assuming that there's a contradiction--irony. MQA may be an illusion--the test is in the listening--but if so it's a far more sophisticated, plausible, and intellectually compelling illusion [edit: than the Intelligent Chip]. I've seen enough of it to recognize that if it's a scam then it's a scam of remarkable subtlety and significance. That's what I want people to see an appreciate.

 

You want to talk about irony? In a way, MQA is--and this is my opinion--an engineer's technology. It talks a lot about neuroscience, but it embraces psychoacoustics. It's willing to sacrifice bit-depth because people can't hear that much dynamic range anyway (partly because you don't have that much in your listening room). It's pragmatic about the huge waste above about 40kHz and aims to figure out what matters and what doesn't--how you can benefit from the advantages of the extra bits at frequencies you cannot hear. (How many of the experts here, I wonder, are convinced that nothing above 44.1kHz sampling frequency matters anyway.) [Edit: The irony is that it's rejected by the technical folks and embraced by the subjectivists you think would reject such quantitative compromises.] It may be wrong, but if you dig into it you find it reflects long and serious thought. If you don't see that, you haven't studied it enough. I don't mean you personally. 

 

MQA may ultimately prove--what, insufficiently advantageous?--but it is a serious technology. I do not base that assessment only on "deference to authority" but to my own fairly extensive explorations. MQA is not the Intelligent Chip. 

 

Still, thanks for reading my old stuff. 

[Ralf11]

The question is whether the public can be persuaded to use something based on SQ or smaller bandwidth, storage, etc.  It helps if the cost of the product is not immediately apparent.

[Brinkman Ship]

42 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

That's a matter of opinion. 

 

Not employed. I freelance. I employ myself. 

translation: my wife supports me.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

24 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I appreciate your line of thought..but the mass market is not concerned one iota with better quality. Apple, primarily, and other companies have made lossy downloads and streams into "standard" quality.  People are not only unaware there is a term known as lossless, they don't know what the sample rate of a Redbook Cd is, and they would not know a bit from a butt.

 

That is just the way it is.

People don't have to understand it, they just have to be told its better. Which camera will I buy? The salesperson says this has more pixels. What's a pixel and why if at all it matters becomes a moot point for Joe public. As said, I think MQA is far more potentially insidious that way and if it starts to take a large foothold the whole end-to-end monopoly by one company scares me. Is that not at least part of the reason this thread is 351 pages long? If it was no threat would not people yawn and move on after a few pages?

[wdw]

1 minute ago, Brinkman Ship said:

translation: my wife supports me.

 

Brinky,

Please give it up....your message is well understood.  You are giving this place a slanted reputation, one easily used by the Stereophile group, and others, (the world is watching this site) to imply a slightly deranged and obsessed bunch of nutty guys.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

I've seen enough of it to recognize that if it's a scam then it's a scam of remarkable subtlety and significance. That's what I want people to see an appreciate.

 

You want to talk about irony? In a way, MQA is--and this is my opinion--an engineer's technology. 

 

MQA may ultimately prove--what, insufficiently advantageous?--but it is a serious technology. I do not base that assessment only on "deference to authority" but to my own fairly extensive explorations. MQA is not the Intelligent Chip. 

 

 

Except Bob and Craven (and you and the trade publication cheer squad) do not have any real support from the very community you would say appreciate it.  Instead, they are either silent or actively against it.  The lies in its marketing don't bother you at all.

 

You see what you want to see.  You have no interest in the full picture of MQA - it's "end to end" takeover, its business and artistic implications, it's DRM, etc. etc.  You just want to promote it because it narcissitically fascinates you.  You could get the same satification from an honest look at MQA, but you don't have the skills, experience, or personality.

 

Fundamentally anti-consumer position of course...

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

People don't have to understand it, they just have to be told its better. Which camera will I buy? The saleperson says this has more pixels. What's a pixel and why if at all it matters becomes a moot point for joe public. As said, I think MQA is far more potentially insidious that way and if it starts to take a large foothold the whole end-to-end momopoly by one company scares me. Is that not at least part of the reason this thread is 351 pages long? If it was no threat would not people yawn and move on after a few pages?

It is ONLY a threat if that is all that it is offered...meaning all the streaming companies scrap their inventory and only stream MQA. Otherwise, it is a joke.

 

Nobody was yawning because they made the big mistake of trying to sell it audiophiles, and they go the two magazines on board. That is when the shit hit the fan. Audiophiles can, and have been gullible to bullshit, but this was a bridge too far. And a look into Stuart's checkered past confirmed that MQA needed a good hard look.

 

Plus, on the surface of things, the notion of being able to post process, so it is BETTER than the original mastered lossless file stunk like a corpse.

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

Brinky,

Please give it up....your message is well understood.  You are giving this place a slanted reputation, one easily used by the Stereophile group, and others, (the world is watching this site) to imply a slightly deranged and obsessed bunch of nutty guys.

LOL. Ok I hear you. Although that premise would not really stand up, since we have Stereophile freelancers calling us circle jerkers and fools.