MQA is Vaporware

[Teresa]

20 hours ago, FredericV said:

If MQA becomes the only or dominant format, we lose our freedom to do whatever we like with real hi-res files...

 

I have zero interest in MQA as I actually prefer DSD to PCM.

 

However, will I still be able to listen to my high resolution uncompressed wav and dsf music files unmingled if MQA becomes the only computer format?

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bill - You haven’t used the Report Post function a single time. 

 

he'd rather call people masturbators (wankers)

[ARQuint]

57 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

ARQuint et al. care not for these matters. That's quite obvious at this point. We can only hope that MQA fails in the market despite the out-sized praise by TAS, Atkinson, Austin, and Darko.

I do care. That's why I'm here.

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

In other words, what is it about your subjectivism that is disconnected and in in conflict with consumers subjectivism?  Another way to ask this question is what is special about your subjectivism?  Not special in a good way, but rather special in that you come to subjectivised conclusions at odds with the other groups who you ostensibly serve?   

 

I don't feel you're listening to me. There are others  besides audio writers who feel that MQA-filtered files sound better than the corresponding PCM source. And not all audio writers with a positive view of the sound have made extravagant claims for the technology.

 

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

what is the point of consumers incurring the added cost created by MQA inserting itself in the mastering, software-development, and hardware-production chains with new licensing expenses? And what is the point of consumers losing the ability to freely copy and play on any device the full, high-resolution file as one can with regular PCM? 

I can agree with all of this. These are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Myself, I do not stream much at all and have a large collection of local HD files that I hope to keep adding to. I want to continue to apply DSP room correction when I listen, which is problematic with MQA. But insulting individuals and attempting to delegitimize publications in their totality because they do not sing exactly the same song as you do on this one issue will not serve anyone's cause, which is the cause of good sound.

 

 

[Ralf11]

I agree that delegitimizing publications should be based on their totality - e.g. the lack of comparative testing or even comparative auditions, the suborning of them by ad dollars and so forth.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I don't feel you're listening to me. There are others  besides audio writers who feel that MQA-filtered files sound better than the corresponding PCM source.

 

I know you feel that way, but consider this: 

 

What if I am listening to you, but moving past you?  You correctly note that there are some who "feel that MQA-filtered files sound better than the corresponding PCM source".  Why?  What is the meaning of that preference?  See, you don't even stop there - you move on to draw out a meaning of the fact of the preference.  In your reply to tmtomh you summarize the meaning it has for you, "the cause of good sound".

 

You have a problem - the meaning that you draw is ill considered, and all but meaningless.  @adamdeahas been patiently trying to explain to you how you draw the wrong objective conclusions from a test about subjective preferences.  He writes in vain however, because it is you who are not listening.  We have listened, and when we speak back to you, you simply repeat the same thing and claim we are the ones who are not listening.  Will you please unplug your ears?

[Brinkman Ship]

16 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I do care. That's why I'm here.

 

I don't feel you're listening to me. There are others  besides audio writers who feel that MQA-filtered files sound better than the corresponding PCM source. And not all audio writers with a positive view of the sound have made extravagant claims for the technology.

 

I can agree with all of this. These are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Myself, I do not stream much at all and have a large collection of local HD files that I hope to keep adding to. I want to continue to apply DSP room correction when I listen, which is problematic with MQA. But insulting individuals and attempting to delegitimize publications in their totality because they do not sing exactly the same song as you do on this one issue will not serve anyone's cause, which is the cause of good sound.

 

 

"I do not stream much at all and have a large collection of local HD files that I hope to keep adding to. I want to continue to apply DSP room correction when I listen, which is problematic with MQA. "

 

Then why the hell do you even give a damn about MQA?

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

  See, you don't even stop there - you move on to draw out a meaning of the fact of the preference.  In your reply to tmtomh you summarize the meaning it has for you, "the cause of good sound".

 

 @adamdeahas been patiently trying to explain to you how you draw the wrong objective conclusions from a test about subjective preferences.

Hi,

Brian Lucey stated that MQA has harmonics, perhaps this is why people like the sound of MQA subjectively. Most people like harmonics (even order).

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[beetlemania]

20 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I do care. That's why I'm here.

 

I haven't read a copy of TAS in many years but I think I've read most/all of your posts in this thread. I don't recall that you've once even acknowledged any of MQA's downsides, never mind cited them as real problems that merit pumping the brakes on endorsements of the format.

[Ralf11]

29 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

Then why the hell do you even give a damn about MQA?

 

 

[wdw]

36 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

....Then why the hell do you even give a damn about MQA?

 

this is, to me, the kernel of the objections raised on this site...if MQA rolls out a verifiable and quantifiable set of test files for all to hear (hasn't happened to date) we can all make our own judgement on the software but in the case of the two mags, Stereophile and TAS, there is a unbelievable ambition to make MQA known and to present it to the public at every opportunity....in light of the varying user reports as to quality and the risk of proprietary control of the mucic, why do you "even give a damn about MQA"...you all seem far too interested in its success when MQA has yet to be thoroughly reviewed.

As someone ventured in the thread above if this MQA were being proferred by an unknown Serbian engineer or a mathematician living near Calcutta, they may, if successfull in bringing it to the world's attention, be accorded the review based on the merits of their work but MQA/BS seemed to have skipped the initial peer review.

The anger on this site is based on your evangelizing.  Why keep asking that MQA be given a chance, why do you care?

[Brinkman Ship]

5 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

this is, to me, the kernel of the objections raised on this site...if MQA rolls out a verifiable and quantifiable set of test files for all to hear (hasn't happened to date) we can all make our own judgement on the software but in the case of the two mags, Stereophile and TAS, there is a unbelievable ambition to make MQA known and to present it to the public at every opportunity....in light of the varying user reports as to quality and the risk of proprietary control of the much, why do you "even give a damn about MQA"...you all seem far too interested in its success when MQA has yet to be thoroughly judged.

As someone ventured in the thread above if this MQA were being proferred by an unknown Serbian engineer or a mathematician living near Calcutta, they may, if successfully bringing it to world attention, be accorded the review based on the merits of their work but MQA/BS seemed to have skipped the initial peer review.

The anger on this site is based on your evangelizing.  Why keep asking that MQA be given a chance, why do you care?

to your point about putting MQA in front of the reader at every conceivable opportunity...

 

-reviews of DACs steamers that are really veiled reviews of MQA (Brinkmann, Meridian, MyTek)

 

-penalizing highly performing, superb measuring DACs/streamers if they do not decode MQA, as if that

should give the potential customer pause

 

-having reviewers who with a limited knowledge base and limited experience with high end digital comment on MQA (Reichert, Fremer, Dudley etc.)

[Shadders]

13 minutes ago, wdw said:

but MQA/BS seemed to have skipped the initial peer review

Hi,

I thought MQA was presented to the AES and no one in the AES applied due diligence as the engineers on this site have. They just endorsed the system.

 

Given this, i do not see the AES as a professional organisation. More of a club for people presenting ideas, good and bad, true or false.

 

If the MQA paper had been presented to the IEEE or IET - it will have been severely criticised for what it is.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[gdpr]

38 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I do care. That's why I'm here.

 

I don't feel you're listening to me. There are others  besides audio writers who feel that MQA-filtered files sound better than the corresponding PCM source. And not all audio writers with a positive view of the sound have made extravagant claims for the technology.

 

I can agree with all of this. These are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Myself, I do not stream much at all and have a large collection of local HD files that I hope to keep adding to. I want to continue to apply DSP room correction when I listen, which is problematic with MQA. But insulting individuals and attempting to delegitimize publications in their totality because they do not sing exactly the same song as you do on this one issue will not serve anyone's cause, which is the cause of good sound.

 

 

This is the 1st time I see a audio journalist using the term MQA filter.

 

I dare all professional audio journalists to blind testing available filters from audio player providers :

1) to identify the MQA filter

2) to clearly state which filter they like the most (of course onlusten be informed after the listening test

 

for the test, 3 music pieces can be chosen, however in consensus - the same 3 files for all journalists.

 

For the player/filters I can suggest Audirvana, HQplayer (upsampling in DSD), ...

I propose to the CA community to propose, up to a maximum of 5, other player/filters.

 

I have my favorite, but I do not have listened to all players available.

I am convinced however that most, if not all, software players capable of configurable filtering, will easily better MQA.

 

I propose to use the best Dac’s from DCS and Berkeley, MQA capable, but also accepting ‘overriding’ filters from software players sources.

 

So Mr. Quint, will you be the 1st to accept this challenge? 

it should not be a big problem for you to get hold of the forementioned Dac’s.

I am convinced that the CA community can help you to get hold of the different software players that be proposed.

 

Dirk

 

P.S.  My choice is HQ embedded player,converting and upsampling to DSD (128 right now due to technical limitations of my Dac with USB/Linux) 

Still keeping my eyes open for a Dac with native DSD512 support on Linux ( and no, the IFI Dacs are not good enough)

 

 

[Ran]

27 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I thought MQA was presented to the AES and no one in the AES applied due diligence as the engineers on this site have. They just endorsed the system.

 

Given this, i do not see the AES as a professional organisation. More of a club for people presenting ideas, good and bad, true or false.

 

If the MQA paper had been presented to the IEEE or IET - it will have been severely criticised for what it is.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

You will be surprised how many papers are submitted. AES members can view these papers as is. It is not a place to validate, comment or reanalyze the paper. I haven't seen any endorsement by the AES to anything MQA. Besides the paper by Stuart / Craven and the recent McGill study, there is nothing about MQA being published.

[ARQuint]

30 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

"I do not stream much at all and have a large collection of local HD files that I hope to keep adding to. I want to continue to apply DSP room correction when I listen, which is problematic with MQA. "

 

Then why the hell do you even give a damn about MQA? 

 

Hello Brink

 

I was just beginning to feel better about corresponding with you since the "666" beneath your photo changed - and now you go and use "hell" and "damn" in the same sentence. I'll take my chances...

 

We're all talking past one another at this point which saddens me because I really feel we're all part of a rather small tribe. Someone noted above that MQA has become some sort of litmus test in audiophilia, or at least the online version of audiophilia. Perhaps if MQA didn't exist, it would be something else, like cables or multichannel or room EQ. If MQA fails, I guess we'll find out. But, for now, it's MQA that has taken on the degree of polarization that characterizes political discourse in both the US and in plenty of European democracies.

Yes, Brink, the fate of MQA probably isn't important to me personally. I'm 64 years old and have 40-plus TB of music on my Synology (by weight, mostly HD) and, as a music writer, continue to get a few CDs/SACDs in the mail every week, which I hope will continue for a bit longer. I've got plenty to listen to. But I want the way forward to be productive for younger people who are discovering that good sound has the potential to maximize musical meaning when listening to an audio system. The tearing down of a sense of community by a self-affirming group of dogmatists isn't going to advance the cause. You should lay off the name-calling—the snarky labling of your fellow hobbyists with a different opinion as "gullible" and the characterization of writers who don't see it your way as liars and shills—as well as the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and you'll get a wider hearing; that's the gist of my plea for civility.

 

Which reminds me: Has anyone noticed that Brinkman Ship and Bob Stuart have the same initials??!!

Just sayin'

?

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Agree with Kal about the products that "force" the MQA filters onto all playback (some allow you to manually  switch filters) should be censored.

I did not and would not use the word "censored."  I prefer "avoided" or "rejected."

 

[rickca]

5 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Has anyone noticed that Brinkman Ship and Bob Stuart have the same initials??!!

I don't think that's a coincidence.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Which reminds me: Has anyone noticed that Brinkman Ship and Bob Stuart have the same initials??!!

Could be Bull Shit.

[rickca]

51 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

make MQA known and to present it to the public at every opportunity.

aka propaganda

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

Hello Brink

 

I was just beginning to feel better about corresponding with you since the "666" beneath your photo changed - and now you go and use "hell" and "damn" in the same sentence. I'll take my chances...

 

We're all talking past one another at this point which saddens me because I really feel we're all part of a rather small tribe. Someone noted above that MQA has become some sort of litmus test in audiophilia, or at least the online version of audiophilia. Perhaps if MQA didn't exist, it would be something else, like cables or multichannel or room EQ. If MQA fails, I guess we'll find out. But, for now, it's MQA that has taken on the degree of polarization that characterizes political discourse in both the US and in plenty of European democracies.

Yes, Brink, the fate of MQA probably isn't important to me personally. I'm 64 years old and have 40-plus TB of music on my Synology (by weight, mostly HD) and, as a music writer, continue to get a few CDs/SACDs in the mail every week, which I hope will continue for a bit longer. I've got plenty to listen to. But I want the way forward to be productive for younger people who are discovering that good sound has the potential to maximize musical meaning when listening to an audio system. The tearing down of a sense of community by a self-affirming group of dogmatists isn't going to advance the cause. You should lay off the name-calling—the snarky labling of your fellow hobbyists with a different opinion as "gullible" and the characterization of writers who don't see it your way as liars and shills—as well as the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and you'll get a wider hearing; that's the gist of my plea for civility.

 

Which reminds me: Has anyone noticed that Brinkman Ship and Bob Stuart have the same initials??!!

Just sayin'

?

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

40 TB??? WOW. I thought I was over the top with 8TB. Back ups must be fun!

 

Well, thank you for at least giving us some insight into your motives.  If you are concerned with younger people being led astray by "a self-affirming group of dogmatists" I think your concerns are seriously misplaced. Younger people are doing just fine and listen and discover to a ton of music without MQA, and the bandwidth to stream full 24/192 is there with no issues..they already watching 1080p videos on all their devices with no problems.

 

 

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I did not and would not use the word "censored."  I prefer "avoided" or "rejected."

He probably meant censured.

[Thuaveta]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

I want the way forward to be productive for younger people who are discovering that good sound has the potential to maximize musical meaning when listening to an audio system.

 

Agreed on some of the rest, but this I feel the need to pounce on. I'm under 40, and thus possibly still on the younger side of the spectrum here. I've had nicer - not high-end by local standards, but far into diminishing returns for regular folks - systems since my early 20's.

 

As Brinkman Ship has pointed out, bandwidth isn't a problem. Neither is storage - a lifetime of music is usually less than 10 TB. My father had an extensive collection of classical records, some of which he'd inherited from my grandmother: it's less than 1'000 disks. My younger brother works in the industry, the type of job that both actually allows you to eat with the money you make, and relies on his taste and foresight, his library is a bit bigger than mine, but it's still within the same ballpark as your typical Roon user's. And no, he'd never heard of MQA when I brought it up.

 

Realising that authorities - publications like yours or Stereophile - have been self-interested to the point of trying to con them into a format like MQA is probably the worst that could happen if the younger generation is who you care about. In a way, that should be the end of the story, but it's not. Let's take a step back :

 

MQA is an old-people format, made by a failed businessman who's too old and, therefore, deaf to be able to properly test his theory, mostly lauded by individuals who've spent a lifetime convincing themselves and others purchasing veblen goods is an expression of genetic superiority. On the other hand, and if your objective is young people, I'd like to respectfully remind you that much of the charge against MQA has been from younger folk - guys in their 20's and 30's. Maybe the players in the industry might want to listen to them rather than trying to talk over them with shills and BS.

 

p.s: in case you hadn't heard, the kids have discovered how to maximise musical meaning, in a way that isn't detrimental to artists' revenue: it's called "going to live shows". Way more fun than listening to BS talk, or than reading some ex-dealer-slash-importer-cum-industry-consultant's completely subjective opinion on a piece of gear you're never quite certain why he's reviewing.

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

...Realising that authorities - publications like yours or Stereophile - have been self-interested to the point of trying to con them into a format like MQA is probably the worst that could happen if the younger generation is who you care about. In a way, that should be the end of the story, but it's not..

 

When @ARQuint says "a community of self-interested dogmatists" without any sense of irony simply reveals the depth and breadth of these industry insiders naivete about their own position vis-a-vis the audiophile and the more general musical lover...

[Brinkman Ship]

The more I think about it, floating the notion that MQA should not be dismissed because it might benefit

younger people is utterly bizarre.

 

I don't know how it could be good for younger people to be trapped into a closed distribution system with the needt o purchase special hardware or software. This reasoning boggles the mind. Plus they already have lossy formats that are universally decodable..they are called Mp3 and AAC.

 

And clearly, Robert Harley was completely unconcerned with "younger people" when he crowned MQA a scientific revolution. I just think Mr. Quint is running out of reasons to cave and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

He clearly stated MQA is of little interest to him, and rightfully so with an amazing collection of lossless hirez music and SACDs that most would envy...so the resistance to the facts is puzzling.

[james45974]

54 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

The more I think about it, floating the notion that MQA should not be dismissed because it might benefit

younger people is utterly bizarre.

 

And clearly, Robert Harley was completely unconcerned with "younger people" when he crowned MQA a scientific revolution. I just think Mr. Quint is running out of reasons to cave and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I thought this was pretty bizarre also!

 

I am not one to give any attention to conspiracy theory rubbish but I wonder if AQuint's participation in this forum is not some sort of "assignment", a distraction.  He certainly doesn't give me the idea that he knows what he is talking about, something which I have given my opinion on before, and in the intervening time I have still not been convinced otherwise.  I can almost hear it: "Go over to CA and keep them busy....", you fill in the blank.  He certainly isn't offering anything of real substance.