MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

56 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I wonder what the motivating factors were behind this.  Why did the idea take hold?  I don't think it is a coincidence that todays radical subjective reviewer (or call it what you like) and his methodology also fits in quite well with a reviewing culture that is industry and sales specific, as opposed to focused on consumers interests such as a balanced objective/subjective evaluation and value.  Take value for instance.  Todays reviewer is very careful to place (though, notice he always does so positively) the product in a certain price category.  He would never upset the industry apple cart by saying in a non qualified manner that a $1k piece of equipment is as good or better than products in the $10k category.  

 

So if predestination is the metaphysical "cause" of the protestant ethic, what is the "cause" of this shift in Audiophiledom?

 

There is a commonality between this, anti-vaxxers and also fake news. All come from the point of people wanting to be right and the common issue of finding others with the same ideals. There was a great article on this type of topic about the Flint Water Crisis - https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/opinions/flint-water-myths-scientific-dark-age-roy-edwards/index.html

 

They call it the Scientific Dark Age. I mean, maybe it is a little too alarmist but the gist is definitely there. Flat earther, anti-vaxxers, Fake news, Climate change deniers, and pseudo-science audiophile Dom all fit into this category. It is hard to fight it, when people do not want to admit they are wrong.

[botrytis]

37 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

This is a slight deviation off the subject, and NOT, NEVER meant to be disrespectful to anyone...  However, in the rock-hard professional audio/recording community (I am on the periphery only), there is a disrespectful term sometimes used when chortling about some of the misguided audio lovers who REALLY want to do the right thing, but have been misled in a very  very cruel way -- 'audiofool'.  Now, DO NOT take offense, because I had been an audiophile in the past -- but as a technically knowledgeable person, seldom (never) ventured into the insanely esoteric realm -- just the technically best that I could afford.

 

However, there is a big group (I don't know how large) of people who *love* audio, and want their experience to be as good as possible given their limitations.  It is sometimes best to have 'financial lmitations', common sense, and a bit of ACCURATE technical knowledge. There ARE profit mongers who are so much in love of taking advantage of the (affluent) audio lovers, that it is sickening. (This is similar to the MQA issue, and advocacy that is either misguided (term intended kindly by me) or misleading (intended unkindly by me.)

 

MQA seems to be a media/software variant on the general l$100K CD player theme:  How can we 'soak' people for their money?

 

These snake oil people are not stupid (usually), but seem to be willing to claim half-truths to vulnerable people.  I don't care if someone has lots of money to waste, but PLEASE I hope that those with the ability to waste spend their money in a way that it benefits more than their egos.  Get the reasonbly technical best equipment that you can, really DO THAT!!!  Get the best, not 'better' than the best!!!

 

If someone is planning to purchase something that is 'better than the best', or somehow 'elite' -- please tell them caveat emptor in the kindest way possible.  I truly feel bad for people who misspend their money, or the similar idea about schemes like MQA -- it is for the purpose of control and/or money -- it is not intended to benefit either the customer or the artist!!!

 

My two cents -- again...  And I did NOT mean to disrepect anyone, but rather to make a kind and supportive wakeup call.  I could make stronger emotional complaints about MQA, but I now suspect that the knowledgeable person, who doesn't have a specific financial/political interest has already been dissuaded (by others cogent comments and explanation.)  It (and other unnecessary complexities)  just aren't in the best interests of most people in the audio community.

 

John

 

None taken. I was just trying to point out  the similar style in thought process, not they are in the same vein of severity at all.  BUT, it is a common denominator to this type of thinking.

[botrytis]

@The Computer Audiophile maybe we need this as our theme song or need to stress - Don't drink the koolaid….

 

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Lee Scoggins like to use the term “at scale” quite a bit like high resolution audio files are some massive chunks of data the likes of which Netflix has never dealt with. 

WAIT - 4K video and 5.1 surround is less data than high res audio? WOW, I am not sure I want to see that 4K video. I realize @Lee Scoggins was trying for the WOW factor in size, but he failed, miserably.

[botrytis]

47 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

See David Blackmer's article at http://recordinghacks.com/articles/the-world-beyond-20khz/?fbclid=IwAR1qwk0hX17D2l9ADbl-40Ggcba1Be_MAEJsWICZiCulP30hq4HCi0nAllU

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Again it is HIS opinion. There is no data to back up his claims. 

 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Beyond being impossible to prove a negative (his not reporting) I wonder if perhaps you fail to consider that this is not anywhere as important to most of the audio world as it is to you.  And, column inches are expensive! 

 

Well, if it is not so important than why spend so much time lauding such a terrible file format? Because they are getting paid to, plain and simple. As Crenca and others pointed out, the audiophiles are the product being sold, not the other way around.

 

If they were true reviewers and I appreciate they do measurements, etc. they would call into question why prices are going so high, etc. They do not.

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

how do they stay in business?

 

I appreciate the lack of a panacea.  But removing a bias is often worthwhile; witness: Consumer Reports.

 

They stay in business by selling ads and shilling to the Audio Equipment Manufacturers.

 

As far as CR, they are shills. I mean, a long time ago when I bought a new Honda, Honda gave me a membership to CR so I could rate their car well. That is biased. The only people that can report to CR are members.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

That sounds far more like a Consumer Reports publication than an enthusiast driven audio review. You could define and start something like that if you wanted to. It would be interesting, and possibly useful. 

 

Sorry no. Example Cook's Illustrated is a non-advertising magazine and they do testing. Problem is, most tests in audio magazines are done by people who own that particular brand of component and WOULD NEVER say it is junk, even if it is.

 

I mean even car magazines call a lemon just that. 

 

I think audio magazine have lived out their usefulness since they are more like mouth pieces for the audio manufacturers, kind of like the NRA.

[botrytis]

Sad, there are no negative reviews in audio magazines, then maybe so much junk wouldn't be pedaled to the public. I mean I remember reading a British car magazine a while ago and one article was, 'Her name is Rio and she is crap'. That made Kia go back a redo the car to be better. Right now the Audio reviewers are in bed with the manufacturers, so there are no real reviews, just the same old junk.

[botrytis]

Interesting, only 22 shareholders in MQA and 14,414 shares in total. Merlin Assets, Sony Music, Universal Music (not much left after that fire in their vault), Warner Music, Reinet S.A.R.L. and, Muse Holdings S.A.R.L. are the only companies. The rest are individuals....

 

 

[botrytis]

Me too, actually.

 

On another topic, I belong to Audiokarma as well, but I haven't been on the site in a while, since they don't appreciate me posting actual facts about MQA. I was told I was a troll. Most there are blindly following Tidal into the sunset.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Note, the labels were GIVEN their shares as compensation for "services rendered"...still have not figured that one out yet.

 

You haven't? 'Services rendered' - OK it was just 'massages'.

[botrytis]

I have tried, on other forums, to point out all the information I gleaned from reading this thread and was delineated as a troll. I guess some want to be in blissful ignorance but, I do not. 

 

I do spend a lot of time, at work, reading patents so I can determine was is real and what is not, for future research. Patents do not have to be actually usable. All it has to do a point out a unique tech or process. This way they CYA.

 

I think MQA is one of those patents. I mean it is not high-res. It changes the actual sound of the file, The only thing that is real is the built-in DRM. The rest of the tech is just there as window treatments.

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Is there a difference? Not when the facts and measurements presented by the authorities on this site are the final word on any subject and facts and measurements presented by those outside the inner circle here are dismissed as shills and trolls. 

 

Well, Archimago and other have shown their measurements and even critiqued their own process. We have SEEN NOTHING FROM THE MQA CROWD. Why is that? What do they have to hide?

 

I think the MQA crowd just repeating the same nonsense over and over is trolling. 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Examine that from the other way around Danny. 

 

It is is proven that MQA is not a technically superior format than say, flac based high res 24/96k. 

 

So why do some people prefer the sound of a MQA file?

 

There are conspiracy theories and other even more unlikely theories floating around, but the simple and most logical reason they prefer the sound of a MQA file is that something is causing MQA files to sound better to them.  MQA is not going to do the research to explain why - they do not have to prove it sounds better, because people are agreeing with them.  And they might harm themselves with the results, besides being difficult and expensive to do.

 

Nobody here wants to do the research, because it is hard, expensive, and could possibly help MQA. The reason might turn out to be more of a legal or ethical problem than a technical one anyway. 

 

The arguments about the audio press press are in large part totally unjustified, IMNSHO. YMMV, etc.

 

 

It is the same problem with people who are Anti-vaxxers. It is the fact they made a decision and then by that very nature feel defensive or even hostile to people who show them they are wrong. It is a known problem with humans and how we collect information.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744023623/when-it-comes-to-vaccines-and-autism-why-is-it-hard-to-refute-misinformation

[botrytis]

I think the problem is, people have read all the Stereophile and other audio magazines about how great MQA is, without actually listening and determining for themselves. They made the decision to believe that MQA IS BETTER, so subconsciously they actually determine that it is. That is how human hearing, etc works.

 

Blind listening throws that into this type of belief system (not the right term but writing fast) into a conundrum and hence many do not want to do it or complain loudly that it is not the right way to do it. BUT, it is the only way to take out human built-in biases. 

[botrytis]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This whole people like MQA thing reminds me of the whole people like MP3 thing.

 

https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/ipod-generation-prefer-mp3-fidelity-cd-says-study-25288/

 

It is what they are used to. Kind of like people who prefer vinyl over CD's and digital. No one is wrong.

 

The point of MQA is to control the music and also to resell what is already out there again. I mean, reselling was done going from vinyl to CD and then SACD. MQA also has a DRM system built in. It is not an after thought, it is the reason MQA was developed.

[botrytis]

10 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Prove what exactly? That MQA sound better than xyz? Or prove that xyz sounds better than MQA? What would ever possess them to attempt to do either? What possible benefit could accrue to MQA to take up critics challenges? 

 

Burden of of proof is on the critic here. Critics have already “proven” that the tech claims were false, their business operations are likely unsound, and alerted to the world to those issues. 

 

 

Yes. That is what MQA says in their claims. That is just like the master. Well, if we can't even figure out what master the MQA file is from and no one is sharing that information. How can we prove what MQA says. With high res PCM, you can tell what master they came from because they tell you. This is a junk claim. 

 

NO - the critics already have proven that MQA is a house of cards. It is up to MQA to prove that it is not. It is up to MQA to step up to the plate and prove a positive, not a negative.

 

Paul, I appreciate your salient writing but you have it wrong here. It is up to MQA and all their supporters and that seems to include you, that what the critics say is not true. It is just that plain and simple. So far, MQA has done nothing but repeat the same platitudes and attack people who question them. 

[botrytis]

14 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I suppose you believe most audiophiles just buy anything, no matter what it sounds like? We just buy stuff and never listen to it?!

 

Or could it be that any and all interest in MQA in the audiophile community has been generated from a suggestion that MQA sounds better?  

 

Of course what it sounds like matters. How MQA sounds is arguably the only thing that does matter actually.

 

It is the nail in coffin.  

 

Everything else can be argued about; currently non-existent DRM,  fears of players being abandoned, so forth and so on. All have counter arguments. 

 

MQA sounding bad, or at least worse than redbook? What is the argument for that? 

 

 

 

If audiophiles know that MQA actually distorts the sound and can make the music sound worse, don't you think Audiophiles would not buy it? It was like HDCD, it really did nothing for the sound, so why pay more? 

 

MQA has a DRM built in, you can't play MQA without either the software and a DAC designed for it  If that is not DRM, I don't know what is.

 

The issue is, the audiophile press, who the audiophiles trust (well not the ones on this board  ) and since the press just regurgitated the talking points of MQA without looking at them and discerning if they are true or not, they have damned themselves. It makes them look bad and untrustworthy.

 

MQA is supposed to be BETTER THAN REDBOOK (majority of it is supposed to be high-res). If it can't sound better that that, MQA is just junk. I have heard files go either way. There is no clear cut advantage to MQA, so why spend MORE money on it? 

[botrytis]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Because that's always the sign of an honest company with nothing to hide :~)

 

I agree

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I am not an MQA proponent. I just believe that one needs to look at facts rather dispassionately to avoiding being caught up in an agenda with unknown purposes. 

 

Did MIT have to prove to you their cables sound great? With all the technical arguments and compelling scientific evidence against it? Or did you simply listen and decide for yourself? The question is of course rhetorical, I have no doubt you listened to the cables and decided for yourself. 

 

Yet with MQA you suggest that audiophiles should not listen and decide for themselves. Does that not set off any alarms for you? If all the tech criticism about MQA is true, and I am convinced it is, then there is nothing really to fear. MQA can not sound better than comparable ALAC, AIFF, WAV, or FLAC files. 

 

If if there are no comparable files, then as you point out, that says something right there. But it is rather unlikely there are no comparable files, unless the MQA file has been remastered. If that is the case, and the MQA mastering is so much better, then the audiophile quandary does become an issue. But we have not seen much of that. Music continues to be released primarily as AAC, FLAC, AIFF, WAV, or MP3, usually in multiple formats. 

 

All comes down to setting aside the emotional crap and focusing on the simple, easily answered question. Does it sound better or not? There is only an issue if it does sound better. 

 

The why only becomes important if MQA sounds better. It is a matter of having the courage of one’s convictions, same as buying audiophile cables. (I have Nordost cables myself, and dearly love them.  )

 

 

We already have WAV,  DSD AND, FLAC that can handle high-res, why do we need another that is encoded and can only be used by those with the proper equipment? I am not one that can spend constantly on equipment to chase the latest new-fangled thing. I have my TEAC UD-501 and unless something comes around that sounds as good, to me, for the same price I got this one, well it is sitting being used on my shelf.

 

What benefit does MQA give to me? Don't say the same nonsense that was spewed forth from the magazines. I want proof, scientific proof. I am a biochemist by training, BTW.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Let me put it another way - your personal statement that you listened to MQA vs <fill in the blank> is far more compelling than any other argument. 

 

MQA is “needed” if - and and only if - it sounds better. See why one statement is far more compelling than the other? (Please note the quotes around “needed.”)

 

Heck, the only reason I ever listened to MQA is because someone here said it sounded better to them. Same with DSD, JRiver, Peachtree, Nordost, tube amps, and dozens of other things. What other possible reason could an average audiophile have? Rhetorical question again, the answer is none. 

 

What it tells me is that there IS NO NEED for MQA. PERIOD. If it didn't sound better, why spend the money. THAT IS THE POINT.

 

Ball is in your point to prove otherwise.

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

By that definition DSD also has DRM built in as you can’t play it without a DAC designed for it. My Schiit Gumby won’t. 

 

But, the point is you can copy an SACD. I have done it. The point of MQA is it is one encoding to conquer all. If MQA gets to be a standard, then that is all we shall see. Chris has already seen that with ROON and Tidal. That is not a good situation.

 

If SACD is DRM, does that mean a vinyl LP has an ARM (since it is not digital, it is Analog Rights Management)? What about RtoR? or Cassettes? See how silly our argument is? These formats were put out with other formats, NOT EXCLUSIVELY. That is a huge difference.

[botrytis]

Just now, John Dyson said:

No benefit for the consumers, and in reality -- no actual benefit to the music owners.  All benefit is in the MQA licensors -- attempt to siphon some profit from the music buying public.

 

John

 

I agree. 

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Not sure how being able to copy an SACD has anything to do with your argument that MQA has DRM but you can copy MQA files as well. And, for what it’s worth, SACD’s explicitly DO have DRM built in, people have found methods to disable it. 

 

Well, it was your argument. 

 

Have you read the rest of my post? Nice obfuscation by quoting only what you want. Quote the whole post. You have taken it out of context which invalidates your argument.

 

SACD came out with CD and vinyl (with Reel to Reel being a smaller portion). So, there was no need to really use SACD if you didn't wanted to. If MQA gets popular, that will be the only choice as the recording industry has bought into it.