MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

Many of the people who post regularly on this forum know more about computer audio that your "industry experts". A good example is the embarrassing series of articles that TAS has published coauthored by an "industry expert" who calls himself The HiFi Doctor. (He has a PhD in Physiology and Molecular Oncology.)

 

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.

[mansr]

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.

 

If you're not sure which you are, it's the latter.

[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.

[Jud]

If you're not sure which you are, it's the latter.

 

[kumakuma]

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.

 

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.

[mansr]

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".

Trolls trolls troll troll trolls.

[Jud]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32460[/ATTACH]

 

I really should have taken this as my avatar, but then I'd have to figure out where to do that and where the jpg I use now is if I ever wanted to go back to it, and frankly I'm way too lazy.

[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.

[jbwhite]

All I know this back and forth between between CA members and ML wasn't good for CA as a whole. From being a place to learn and grow the hobby it was pretty darn embarrassing to say the least. It went to far and Chris should have moved in and stopped the madness. I sure hope people from now on look at the big picture, its not about one or two people and their opinions its about the hobby as a whole, you can help it succeed or you can kill it with the remarks people make and those remarks reflect the culture of this site. From what I have read today, some acknowledge maybe they went to far, and for me that's a start in civility.

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.

[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.

[Ralf11]

Sorry if I'm asking a dumb question, but I'm a Newbie. Is this the Breitbart site I've been reading so much about?

 

 

No, but it IS very similar as it also has "hacks" who are afraid of science on it

[jbwhite]

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

[realhifi]

Many of the people who post regularly on this forum know more about computer audio that your "industry experts". A good example is the embarrassing series of articles that TAS has published coauthored by an "industry expert" who calls himself The HiFi Doctor. (He has a PhD in Physiology and Molecular Oncology.)

 

So I take it he won't be invited?

[Don Hills]

... Anybody heard any good tunes on MQA? You know, music. That's why we are here, right?

 

If you mean here as in this thread, you're wrong. It's not what this thread was created to discuss.

A lot of the discord that you decry in the rest of your post would be avoided if people would stick to topic. Yeah, like that's ever likely to happen...

[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.

[Samuel T Cogley]

If you mean here as in this thread, you're wrong. It's not what this thread was created to discuss.

A lot of the discord that you decry in the rest of your post would be avoided if people would stick to topic. Yeah, like that's ever likely to happen...

 

This thread is a discussion about whether or not MQA is "vaporware". Between the time this thread was started and now, the Warner MQA dump happened. Then, a well thought out post over at the Linn forums breaking down many of the possible downsides to MQA was reposted in the comments section of one of ML's MQA posts at Audiostream. Then, that post was deleted. The stated justification was that it was an advertisement for Linn. Then, ML's motives for doing that deletion were questioned. Then, ML showed up here. And here we are.

 

Seriously, this thread was never about what MQA sounds like. There are many other threads at CA that discuss that.

[mav52]

{just using your post here to riff off of - it is expressing what others have said in different ways as well}

 

I have to respectfully disagree. The problem is not dialogue per se, the problem is real disagreement. Now, we could have a kind of politically correct culture, where certain things are not discussed and where certain people are more equal than others (say, ML because of his long experience, industry status, etc.) and where we "ask questions", just not the hard ones and thus we really only "learn" what the sages tell us is so (rather it is true or not), OR we can have a slightly uncomfortable and a bit "confrontational" culture where real disagreement happens and sacred cows are actually questioned, shot, and eaten. Now, I agree this can be done in a more "civil" manner, but honestly give me real and messy conflict over a safe and false "civility" any day. ML promotes a kind of "civility" on his site - it is a smothering and tyrannical "civility" that only leads to one place - whatever he thinks is right and true...

 

 

The thing is, you and others and ML were wrong to let this get out of hand and that didn't help you're cause or his. It just went nowhere and that's a shame as a lot could have been learned. Knowledgeable people discussing a topic intelligently would have been helpful to the members and viewers of CA.

 

Thats it for me on this topic.

[CPP]

Now can someone explain to me, is there any way to see the DRM restrictions in these MQA files that Tidal is supposed to be offering their paying Hi-Fi users. I understand I can't play a full MQA file on a non certified DAC, but how is it we can still play part of the file. IS it those same restrictions that is preventing a full MQA presence.

[plissken]

Isn't vaporware. It's another format among many, and opinions are all over the place about it's SQ. Some prefer PCM, others DSD, some like what they are hearing with MQA.

 

Nothing much is going to change in that regard.

[asdf1000]

Wow, this thread. Why can't both or all sides of an argument or opinion express their opinion in a respectful manner? Without resorting to personal insults and attacks? Both sides were very unprofessional but I'm glad some have taken steps to bring things back to normal.

 

Just my opinion here and I mean all these incredibly respectfully:

 

1. We now have a growing library to listen in our own systems (thanks to Tidal).

 

2. We now also have some clever people doing testing and reverse engineering (including here on CA on another thread) and people are free to respectfully critique or comment on these tests to try and help everyone move forward

 

3. We have more hardware and software decoding coming to make full MQA decoding possible, so that we can do more testing in our own systems and decide whether we want it or not

 

4. From CES it seems there will be more non-MQA Hi-Res streaming options coming, to further do our own listening and testing in our own systems. More options is a great thing.

 

I don't understand where personal insults and attacks need to fit in, in any of the above, whether it's someone instigating the insult or someone replying with more insults? :-(

 

In an attempt to stay on topic, I agree with one of the earlier concerns about MQA purchase downloads and potentially being caught out later if MQA Dacs fade away (and if you don't have a software decoder). However I also agree with one of the replies that it seems MQA is more focused on streaming for now. At least for now (and things can change) a lot of the pop albums that have been released on Tidal in MQA, can't be purchased in the MQA format for downloads, so that's possibly a sign that their focus is on streaming, but I could be wrong.

[jhwalker]

Now can someone explain to me, is there any way to see the DRM restrictions in these MQA files that Tidal is supposed to be offering their paying Hi-Fi users. I understand I can't play a full MQA file on a non certified DAC, but how is it we can still play part of the file. IS it those same restrictions that is preventing a full MQA presence.

 

There are no "restrictions". *ANYONE* can play the files at ~ CD quality.

 

If you have an MQA-enabled software player (Tidal desktop, for example), you will get the first level of additional quality ("unfolding" to 88.2 or 96/24). If you also have an MQA renderer, you can get the full playback experience when used with an MQA-enabled software player. If you have an MQA-enabled DAC, you can get the whole kit and kaboodle.

[Samuel T Cogley]

The thing is, you and others and ML were wrong to let this get out of hand and that didn't help you're cause or his. It just went nowhere and that's a shame as a lot could have been learned. Knowledgeable people discussing a topic intelligently would have been helpful to the members and viewers of CA.

 

Thats it for me on this topic.

 

I respectfully disagree. ML did not come here to avail himself to everyone's questions. That's what his blog is for and that's what he gets paid for. I concede that his desire to maintain his stature encouraged him to engage in the slightest, tiny bit of polite back and forth with some forum members that showed him the requisite reverence. But no new information was revealed, and he would be a fool to reveal anything new anywhere else but his blog.

[christopher3393]

I was thinking more like sock puppet.

 

Hey now, lay off the sock puppets!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQP2ZVfZ8DM&list=PLBE339CA100A496F1

[Samuel T Cogley]

Now can someone explain to me, is there any way to see the DRM restrictions in these MQA files that Tidal is supposed to be offering their paying Hi-Fi users. I understand I can't play a full MQA file on a non certified DAC, but how is it we can still play part of the file. IS it those same restrictions that is preventing a full MQA presence.

 

Actually, that's not the case. You would not hear it in "full resolution", but you certainly could play it. At least today.