MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

Yes it does.

 

Ok. Are you able to provide technical detail that supports this?

[Samuel T Cogley]

How is a summary of true statements "propaganda"? You're being ridiculous.

You're certainly entitled to believe "truth" comes from for-profit media outlets.

[Samuel T Cogley]

STC: what exactly is he trying to accomplish funny pointless sarcastic or all the above(remember K questions on standardised exam)? All the things I have posted no one except one has said what I posted was even funny/sarcastic or even serious he said it was hilarious-made my day.

 

His "playfully precocious" shtick fooled me at first. I think it's trolling. YMMV of course.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Prove that nonsense.

 

You have only provided the MQA line in all the back and forth here. I have read your own articles on MQA. To say you're an advocate is at least an understatement.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Of course you are wrong. Does that mean anything to you? (rhetorical)

 

You claim I'm wrong. And no, that has zero value to me.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Don't rule out that Meridian is doing some loss leader-esque deals with Tidal to get it boot strapped. They could actually be paying Tidal to host MQA content.

 

Yup, and doing the Warner MQA conversion for free as well.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I have posted some comments today on this thread to the effect that just because a music service uses cryptographic technology it doesn't mean that it involves DRM (Digital Restrictions Management), and that cryptographic signing can be a good thing to ensure the end user isn't getting some kind of bootleg recording instead of what they thought they were getting.

 

The 'A' in MQA is about authentication and I think that hints at a real problem with the current hi-res download market and the lack of provenance info. It feels to me like the music files that the record labels provide to HD Tracks and other download sites are just 'amateur hour' stuff where they routinely screw up the meta data, sell upsampled 16/44.1 tracks as hi-res without even appearing to know and so on.

 

I think we essentially agree. However, we never needed "authentication" before and I believe it's at a minimum superfluous and could very well be a pretext for "hard" DRM in the future. To me, all "authentication" really means is, "yes, we meant to compress the dynamic range so atrociously". I don't need that. "Authentication", in this context, is a solution in search of a problem.

[Samuel T Cogley]

No. DRM is not restricted to stopping people copying stuff. DRM is about any form of management what people can do and what they cannot do. Look at wikipedia definition.

 

Ok, I'm coming around to what you're saying:

 

DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.

 

The "authentication" aspect of MQA is of little use to the consumer. Here's an example:

 

For me (and I'll bet for several or many of you), the name of the person (or in some cases the mastering facility/company) doing the mastering means far, far more than whether or not the file is "authenticated". As a hard example, I'll use the CD that showed up today. Rufus' "Ask Rufus". This particular one is a Japanese master and is the only one I've heard so far with a sound quality "worthy" of a good DAC/system. But the (admittedly non-MQA) version on Tidal is middling at best. If that version suddenly becomes "authenticated", it will still sound meh. And I seriously doubt that the Japanese master will become the "authenticated" one.

 

MQA has explicitly admitted that the Warner MQA dump was "low hanging fruit" and that real remastering has to happen on the rest of the catalog to become MQA-ed. This could easily mean that Warner has spent something close to $0 on this first dump (I'm speculating of course).

 

In the end, I think it's quite disingenuous of MQA to proclaim that MQA is a "win" for audiophiles when the Loudness Wars elephant in the room is still alive and well and being completely ignored by BOTH MQA and the record labels. The major record companies STILL don't care about sound quality, period.

[Samuel T Cogley]

FYI several PM's from Michael to myself. I detect a hint of a threat:

 

1> I'm not sure that last message sent - Buttercup

 

Here's my home address:

 

XXXXXXXXXX (removed by editor)

Glen Gardner, NJ 08826

 

You are welcome any time to share your thoughts face-to-face. Bitch.

 

2> I have a better idea.

 

Send me your full name and address and I'll come visit you.

 

We can "talk".

 

3> I have to run but let me know...

 

...if you're interested in that face-to-face. My guess is you'll back down like a little puppy and we'll get along just fine.

 

I'll buy the first round.

 

Since you also said you won't be at Axpona, I could switch up to RMAF to tell you to your face. I've never seen anyone self-dox... how odd.

 

He's attempting to goad you into revealing your real life details so he can sic some lawyers on you. Please don't give him the chance.

[Samuel T Cogley]

(removed by editor)

 

Hey! Chris is watching! I think it's just awesome that you're letting this play out. I'm doing my best to keep it from being personal!

[Samuel T Cogley]

Yup. Every once in a blue moon I like to check in with the people that believe I'm the anti-Christ.

 

My favorites are the guys who are still stewing over a 4+ year-old review of Ethernet cables.

 

As I said to plissken in a Private Message, which I've come to learn = Public Message here:

 

Ask yourself something -- you are still concerned with and thinking about a 4+ year-old review of Ethernet cables. How meaningful is your life?

 

For the record, I also apologized for his feeling threatened. I've been binge watching "Breaking Bad" and that "bitch" slipped out. Yo.

 

So, we're here for your personal ego gratification? At least make it worth our while:

 

Please try to reconcile the MQA marketing claim that MQA is a "win" for audiophiles with the complete silence from both MQA and Warner about the sheer quantity of dynamically compromised material in the recent Warner MQA dump. Can you do that without bobbing and weaving, without obfuscation or ad hominem?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Absolutely (you paranoid dweeb ;-)

 

I do not take "marketing claims" at face value because they are marketing claims. My experience with MQA, which is now based on Tidal/MQA, is that MQA does not make music sound worse.

 

Of course shitty recordings are shitty recordings, there you'll get no argument from me. However, it is my experience that even shitty recordings can be more compelling than well-recorded music I have no interest in.

 

So, did I think MQA would cure the Loudness Wars? No. Did you?

 

Am I happy that I can stream hi-res through Tidal HiFi at no additional cost? Yup.

 

There's that ad hominem I was talking about.

 

I've read everything (I think) you're written about MQA on Audiostream. Most of it is gushing, no-holds-barred evangelism (some would call it shameless shilling). So I totally get that I shouldn't expect anything even remotely objective or even handed in your responses about MQA.

 

MQA claims to be partnering with the major labels to improve the sound we hear. But isn't MQA being completely disingenuous by being a willing (perhaps even enthusiastic) partner in further disseminating dynamically compromised material?

 

The labels (at least Warner) seem to be listening when MQA says:

 

If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based.

 

Setting aside Mr. Christlu's apparent lack of understanding of HDTracks pricing model, why are the labels (and investors?) listening to this and not our constant complaints about how awful dynamically compromised material sounds? It's antithetical to "high fidelity", yet the record companies still believe "loud sells". Don't you have some duty to carry the torch for high fidelity? Otherwise, how are you not being disingenuous or craven yourself?

[Samuel T Cogley]

That ad hominem was a joke. I'm sorry you didn't get it.

 

You are conflating two disparate points.

 

I am of the opinion that dynamic compression can only be adressed if people/consumers care about the quality of the music they listen to. If hi-res streaming becomes more mainstream, which appears to be the direction its heading, then people *may* begin to care about the quality of the music they listen to.

 

*If* this happens, the music industry will get the message that shitty sounding music will no longer sell.

 

Short of all that, the idea that preaching about dynamic compression strikes me as a bad idea.

 

Oh, the "just kidding" excuse. Who's immature now?

 

And to your last sentence, I think you mean, "bad for my career".

[Samuel T Cogley]

If I am a shill for MQA you are a pedophile.

 

Make sense, amigo?

 

You arrogantly believe your station entitles you to this kind of escalation. That much is crystal clear.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I am of the opinion that dynamic compression can only be adressed if people/consumers care about the quality of the music they listen to. If hi-res streaming becomes more mainstream, which appears to be the direction its heading, then people *may* begin to care about the quality of the music they listen to

 

This essentially means, "let's make MQA enormously successful and hope for the best". Every response is an ad for MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I should have known better, and I humbly apologize. I'm done.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Sorry Sam, but you're truly making a fool of yourself..

 

Just tell us about your first MQA SQ experiences please. Makes more sense me thinks..

 

Your tolerance for Mr. Lavorgna's behavior seems to be rather asymmetrical to your tolerance for mine.

[Samuel T Cogley]

My limited experience with "fully decoded" MQA is with a Meridian Explorer 2. While I will concede that the sound quality of $200 DACs continues to improve, the general coloration of the DAC will undoubtedly color the MQA decoding.

 

After listening for several days to nothing but that E2 (MQA and not), I will say that I much prefer the overall sound of iDSD Micro/HQPlayer (Redbook and up) to the sound of the E2 (with upsampled PCM).

 

MQA? I can't find an equivalent non-MQA-ed file to A/B. The MQA-ed file always sounds "remastered", even compared to a 192kHz file.

[Samuel T Cogley]

That's rather childish IMO but it's fine. If you like throwing mud more than talking about MQA's SQ who am I to object? This thread is already polluted beyond recognition anyway. To each his own.

 

I changed my mind and posted some thoughts. You're not disputing a pro-Lavorgna bias though, right?

 

P.S.: Cleaning up that HTC ad every time I reply is tiresome.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Don't forget to take your lithium

 

I've always been aware of a herd mentality in many quarters of audiophilia, and sycophancy dressed as "enjoy the music" is on full display here.

 

Look, I readily and wholeheartedly admit that I contributed greatly to the pollution of this thread and I humbly apologize. Mr. Audiostream clearly feels defending his "reputation" justifies asymmetric responses and I realized (admittedly much, much too late) that he was only here to protect said "reputation" and will answer valid technical queries with only sarcasm and ad homenim.

 

You're not helping by appointing yourself some kind of surrogate for Mr. Audiostream. He's a big boy, I'm sure he'll confirm this.

 

Based on your apparent affluence, I predict that you have a high enough level of intelligence to understand that the $2k that was offered would be consumed by round trip airfare to Europe. You're being childish to keep harping on it.

 

I ask @plissken to stop engaging Mr. Audiostream as it's accomplishing nothing more than driving people away and giving the ones staying the opportunity to further voice their displeasure with the continued thread pollution, causing even more thread pollution.

 

As I said, I know how very dirty my hands are in all this. But, I hope at least some will believe me when I say I've learned something in the last 72 hours and my forum demeanor will certainly change as a result. I can't give an ironclad guarantee that relapses won't occur. :-)

[Samuel T Cogley]

This reminds me a little of the Dr. Carl Sagan quote: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

 

Yep, some folks here who like to *disagree with* (as opposed to harangue - there's a difference) so-called "experts" are experts themselves. And some are bozos.

 

Hi Jud

 

This is fair. I've been on the internet since the early 80s. What you're engaging in here is what we used to call, "trolling the troll trollers".

 

WOPR's words at the end of WarGames were prescient.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Great quote!

 

I think that most of us have a list in our heads who the clowns are, although our lists are probably different.

 

I would definitely like to see more participation from those in the industry although I understand the reluctance. I noticed, for example, that Barry D. stopped posting after a particularly unpleasant exchange with a member here who likes to be right.

 

Perhaps Chris could host moderated virtual call-in sessions with industry experts with zero-tolerance for off topic nonsense.

 

My fantasy would be Bob Stuart participating in a Reddit Ask Me Anything. Higher statistical probability of our sun going supernova in the next five minutes than that happening, however.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I would definitely like to see more participation from those in the industry although I understand the reluctance. I noticed, for example, that Barry D. stopped posting after a particularly unpleasant exchange with a member here who likes to be right.

 

Barry doesn't drink the cool aid, which makes him a pariah in many quarters of audiophilia.

[Samuel T Cogley]

For what it's worth (probably not much to this crowd) my view of CA just took a 180 degree turn over the past 24 hours. I've been a frequent visitor to CA since it was first launched. I had the highest respect for Chris C. and thought he had really built something special with CA.

 

I have never visited a CA forum before yesterday. I just don't think they are a very worthwhile way to spend my time unless I have a specific technical support problem or hardware configuration question.

 

I visited your MQA thread because I'm trying to figure out what MQA means for me - if anything- and thought there might be some useful information posted. When I opened the thread and saw Lavorgna posting I was surprised and thought he might have some information of value to me. And no, I don't believe everything he says, and yes, I know he has an inherent conflict of interest.

 

I couldn't believe what I was seeing happen. It was probably good for me, because I've never done any of this social media stuff. No Facebook, no Twitter, I've never posted to a forum in my life until this week. The only thing of value I was able to gleen from hundreds of posts was that non-Tidal streamers were going to be non-MQA. At least now I better understand how social media works.

 

And yes, it did severely damage CA's reputation in my view. I'm not so sure I'll be visiting the site in the future - definitely not as often as I have in the past.

 

Thanks for the learning experience.

 

My only comment is that for someone who claims to have "never done any of this social media stuff", your forum writing skills suggest you're either a prodigy or something else.

[Samuel T Cogley]

No. I've done a lot of real writing. And no, I'm not a troll trying to spoil your fun.

 

I was thinking more like sock puppet.