MQA is Vaporware

[Fair Hedon]

20 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

My sources tell me Meridian is actually tremendously profitable firm and has made a boatload on licensing deals.

Your posts have become beyond ridiculous.  You are a Meridian/MQA White Knight here to spin any negative factual information into fake news.

 

The fact is Meridian has been bleeding money for 40 years. They had several enormous cash infusions from Stuart's in laws, who are an incredibly wealthy family. Plus several infusions from outside investors.

 

You literally just make things up and it is time you just leave.

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

Rather than simply believing what you are told, take a look at their actual financial statements:

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02710631/filing-history

 

The company lost money in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016. They would have lost money in 2015 as well but they recorded a one-time sale of their intellectual property. I suspect this was related to the spin-off of the MQA assets into a separate company.

Independent research? What is that?  Why bother when you have "sources"...

[Fair Hedon]

The golden rule with MQA shills is...give 'em enough rope....and....

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

I see no question in the post that comment appeared in, merely one or two statements akin to 'consultants are parasites'.

Exactly, no one asked. And there is a very big distinction between technical consultants and business consultants...a very big one.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Yes, they are not doing well on an operating basis.

LOL!!!!!!

 

You think?

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

Yes.  I think Scoggie is #5 so far... maybe 6

Maybe a new term for MQA shills that get banned..we can say they got Scoggied...lol....

[Fair Hedon]

8 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

You really think they're going to leave it up to consumers to demand anything ? Because I hear both the RIAA and JAS are supportive of the technology.

The engineers wing of the Recording Academy recommendations for Hi-Rez AUdio.  40 odd pages, not a single mention of MQA. From Nov, 2107.

 

https://www.grammypro.com/sites/default/files/recommendations_for_hires_music_production_10_10_17.pdf

 

[Fair Hedon]

9 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Pages 4:

 

 

And 34:

 

 

NO mention of MQA with regard to any technical standards or workflow procedures.

 

I happen to know for a FACT that the MQA mention was insisted upon by Bob Ludwig, who is hoping to profit with MQA and was paid to make promotional videos.

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Oh, ok. Sorry for missing your point.

No worries at all. i should have been clearer..

 

MQA from a production stand point...is a non entity. Recording and mastering engineers, and producers could not possibly be less interested.

[Fair Hedon]

8 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

I wonder if it’s now to late for Apple to squash MQA, would the labels allow them to stream and sell true lossless at this point?

 

Tidal is really irrelevant in the big picture.

 

 

 

I am guessing Apple sees MQA as a knat not even worth batting an eyelash over.

 

Apple has always been about selling hardware. And they will never deviate from their core business.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think Bob and the team did learn a few things from their experience with MLP and DVD-Audio.

Bob Bob Bob Bobba Ann. Bob's your uncle...Bob oh Bob.

[Fair Hedon]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

We’re you attempting to add something to the conversation?

Yes, that Lee and Bob are a on first name basis. But you know, Mr Scoggins is "neutral".

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

While I agree with much of this Chris, there should be boundaries.  Earlier my competence as a consultant was questioned.  Given that my consulting work has no bearing on the discussion, why is this necessary? 

 

Ther should be a basic level of respect for participants...but to be honest I don’t see that being the case if you support elements of MQA.

Tunnel vision posters who are tone deaf should get no respect.

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Wrong. Everyone deserves respect as a person. Not points of view, but people deserve respect. 

 

If you have no respect for people, I have no time for you. Perhaps you just got a bit carried away?

Correct, people deserve respect. I am separating the respect people receive from their online personas.

I understand what you are getting at but I find it hard to respect trolls and posters are disingenuous.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

First name basis means nothing when we’re all discussing the same handful of people. 

Really?  I disagree, and numerous other posters have made fun of it. So, I am clearly not alone in this opinion.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Is my Pro-MQA lashing going to start soon?

 

Thank you sir, may I have another :~)

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sure, not everyone will be into streaming but I think it has the best chance for widespread appeal.

 

As for sound quality, I let my ears be the guide. They remain the best instrument out there for evaluation.  So far, I have been impressed by the sound quality.

And the fact that you can be duped by lossy DSP tells us all we need to know.

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, BratStrangler said:

Lee - your self awareness is highly limited. Take a step back and consider why you are receiving the grief that you are (and why you keep coming back for more).

 

This isn’t  the Hoffman forum and seems that’s what you are looking for.   A nice little industry honeypot for the shills such as yourself (and an increasingly docile user base).   

I find it shocking he has not been banned for telling someone to F OFF, and  calling another person a J $$$.

[Fair Hedon]

3 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

If you ban Lee, then you won't be able to contradict statements.

 

He does have valid points in some of the posts.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

I fail to see his valid points, and if they are there, they are wrapped in a bouquet of misleading statements.

[Fair Hedon]

17 minutes ago, Shadders said:

HI,

A quick one without having to trawl through all the posts - he stated if he likes the sound of MQA then he will purchase - same for others throughout the world.

 

Despite MQA shortcomings, and technical inferiority to other high resolution files, if people like MQA they will buy it. People purchase MP3 as opposed to CD - despite the superiority of CD.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Point taken, but he and the rest position them selves as voices of authority and those with better than average ears. So equating the fact that most people can't hear any difference between mp3 and Redbook with the audiophiles who "like" MQA over the corresponding hirez file is a false equivalency.

 

The average listener with an mp3 collection who don't lo anything of higher resolution have no agenda, they just want music.

[Fair Hedon]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Can't argue with what you hear. But I can argue with all the reviews basically saying MQA is clearly better, and pretty much always better in every case. I don't hear that at all: I hear sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes different but not really better or worse.

I just listened to  Keith Jarrett's "Shades" in Redbook, MQA, and 24/96. I'd assume the MQA is made from the 24/96 (unless they went back to the tape, which I seriously doubt, as pretty much the entire ECM catalog suddenly appeared in Tidal and in MQA). 

The main difference I hear between the MQA and the Redbook is that in the MQA everything is pushed forward closer to the listener. Is this better? It's a matter of debate. I'd have to say yes, because it makes it easier to hear some of the detail.

But how does that sound compared to the 24/96? IMO, not as good. And clearly not. The 24/96 sounds somewhat between the Redbook and MQA in how far "forward" it seems to be. So you easily hear all the detail. But I'd say the hi-res is a more balanced, coherent, natural sound. Much more like real music and makes the MQA sound sort of artificial - impressive, but not like the real thing. 

 

Just my 2 cents. I can't argue with people who like MQA. But I can't help feeling that the without exception praise some are making about every MQA track they hear is at least partially based on expectation bias. Reverse the labels on the tracks, and they'll tell you the standard hi-res track sounds better than the MQA. 

Isn't curious that a relatively small group of writers and bloggers set the narrative that MQA sounds better?

 

No where else has this narrative originated.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, Dr Tone said:

 

 

The expectation bias was implanted as quickly as possible on announcement.

Yes, and in talking to literally hundreds of show attendees who heard MQA demos, and those who compared MQA to hirez and at home, i literally could not find on single listener with the same opinion as the pro shills.

[Fair Hedon]

11 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Lee,

I understand your concern, that the quality is not that high, but the differences are apparent. For me to listen to MQA, i will have to purchase a DAC - and i am happy with what i have got.

 

To add to this - reading the MQA AES paper, they use a technique for adding information that is not there. That is, they process the file to add information which they cannot know was there in the original recording. This is an effect that some people like, and others do not like, or are ambivalent about.

 

So, my take on this is, adding information to a recording which you do not know was there in the studio in the first place means any MQA processing is fake. It may sound nice, but it is still fake.

 

The other aspect is temporal blurring. Without knowledge of the filters used, you cannot reverse this.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

...and the fact that MQA adds what is not there gets to the heart of the ultimate MQA lie..that it is exactly what was heard in the mastering studio, and can be "authenticated".

 

We start of with a massive lie, then it only got wose as the layers were peeled.

[Fair Hedon]

Posted on the Hoffman thread: by member "art".

 

"To these ears and those of a multiple Grammy-winning recording engineer/producer, on multiple systems ... including his own studio--involving major albums he worked on--the MQA to us proved to be colored, often unflattering version of the 24/192 flac files of the same mastering. We're doing a piece for a mainstream paper."

 

I can't wait.

[Fair Hedon]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

That's all fine. Our problem with you in this thread is that you seem to make judgements on MQA without any actual analysis ; rather you talk to people "involved in the industry" and then make a judgement based on your  "sense" of what is correct. There have been several substantive  technical objections raised here and elsewhere that you've ignored, and and then repeated your previously stated conclusions without taking them into account. 

 

Well sorry, you should be doing actual technical analysis to see if the claims  of people "in the industry" hold up. So far you've given no indication that you have either the inclination, theoretical understanding, or math skills to properly evaluate what you are hearing in your conversations.

 

As such, your conclusions are only personal impressions, and have little value for anyone other than yourself or others looking for a subjective "review"; unfortunately, a major audio mag is presenting them as if they are a true evalution/anlysis of MQA.

Translations: He is tone deaf to anything outside the MQA Bubble. And that is why he is useless to me.