MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It would be terrible for people to show up and give Ken Forsythe the Ken Forsythe treatment. Not letting him speak and interrupting his presentation would be just terrible. He would never do such a thing :~)

 

 

So it appears they are still actively promoting this scheme.

 

Perhaps they are just keeping it going in order to pad their retirement accounts.

[KeenObserver]

Anyone attend the MQA seminar at Axpona?

I'm sure they were breaking down the doors to get in.

[KeenObserver]

Thought it would give us, and perhaps MQA, if anyone is still interested in MQA.

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

Did anyone go and see this session,

I see it was held virtually, anyone know who the award "wining" mastering engineers are in the commercial recording world using MQA to create their finished work ?

 

I am curious about this myself.

Is MQA Ltd still trying to push this scheme behind the scenes?

Do the majors still think they can force this scheme onto the music consumer, whether they like it or not?

Obviously, Lee thinks that starting the whole "MQA ecosystem" line of BS, again, will convince gullible music consumers.

Is MQA in death throes or are we waiting for the other shoe to drop?

 

Obviously, the principles of MQA Ltd would like to prolong this scheme for as long as possible. They are being paid and appear to be getting retirement packages.

 

Do the money people behind this scheme believe that they will eventually get a return on their money?

What promises have been made by whom?

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

Tell me why mQa's environmental boasts are just too much hot air.

 

 

Their desperate attempts to associate themselves with "sustainability", along with their performance at RMAF 2018, show the actual value of MQA.

[KeenObserver]

The objective of MQA is to control the entire music chain from production to replay of music and to impose a "tax" on every aspect of music production and replay.

The music consumer would have no choice if MQA imposed their scheme as planned.

 

The music consumer has a choice as to what value they place on "subjective" opinion. They can make a choice as to what product they buy.

[KeenObserver]

On 6/10/2022 at 11:25 AM, GoldenOne said:

I'm genuinely surprised MQA is still operating.
Their latest accounts show a £4,340,856 loss for 2020, and £4,176,743 for 2019.

How can they keep on operating when things are looking like that with no clear route to an improvement?
Who on earth is still financially backing this?

 

You have to understand that millions to a billionaire or a multi billion investment company may be just seed money, if they believe that there will be SUBSTANTIAL gains on the other end.

The business plan of MQA is to control the music industry, and to collect royalties at every stage of the music business. The music consumer would ultimately be paying for this.

The majors have their own reasons for implementing this scheme.

The problem now is that many people see this scheme for the money grab that it is. There is no benefit to the music consumer, only cost.

At this point you have to wonder if the majors still think that they can force this misbegotten scheme on the music consumer.

[KeenObserver]

It seems that things on the MQA front have been quiet lately. It brought up the thought that MQA may be dying.

However, the last time I thought that, Warner dumped its MQA collection on Tidal.

The majors want to see MQA adopted across the music industry.

I have to ask the question again: Do the majors think they can force this misbegotten scheme on the music consumer?

[KeenObserver]

How many years has the threat of MQA been hanging over the head of music consumers?

How many cycles of the same MQA BS have we gone through?

 

For the sake of the future of quality music I wish that MQA would just fold its tent and go away.

[KeenObserver]

I can understand why MQA would promote itself so desperately.

I can understand why the majors want to promote this misbegotten scheme.

 

Why do these individuals continue to promote this scheme, repeating the same debunked MQA BS over and over and over ad nauseum?

What do they get out of it?

[KeenObserver]

I have downloaded music from HD Tracks in the past.

However, I will not support anyone that supports MQA.

I uninstalled HD Tracks down-loader from my music server and unsubscribed from the email notifications.

[KeenObserver]

I find it strange that there are people on HD Tracks that prefer the MQA download rather than a high resolution digital copy.  The MQA download in all likelihood came from the high resolution copy.

If the influencers extolled the virtues of eating dog crap like the promoters of MQA, would we see people swooning over the flavor of dog crap?

I find it incredible what people accept as fact.

[KeenObserver]

If it goes through the MQA process, it is better than original.

 

Heavy sarcasm

[KeenObserver]

Come to think of it, MQA seems to be the equivalent of food through a dog. The outcome is the same.

[KeenObserver]

This is too easy.

[KeenObserver]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Suckers or shills?  Can't be both.  🙂

 

If they were suckers, it shows the value of their commentary.

If they were shills, it shows the value of their commentary.

[KeenObserver]

The business plan of MQA is that they want to have control of every aspect of music production, and charge royalties on every aspect of music production. The music consumer would ultimately be paying the "Tax" for all these royalties. All for a process that corrupts the original recording.

And, unlike the ridiculous beer analogy where you can choose your beer, the business plan for MQA is to control all music distribution. The business plan for MQA, in conjunction with the majors, is to have all music distributed in only MQA format.

[KeenObserver]

Virtually every claim that MQA makes has been shown to be wanting. There is nothing that MQA claims to do that cannot be done with open source, readily available free products.

There is already great music available, without paying the MQA "Tax", that has not been corrupted by the MQA process.

[KeenObserver]

Why the sudden resurgence of hacks promoting MQA?

Are we going to have to go through another round of BS?

MQA is a misbegotten scheme that offers absolutely no benefit to the music consumer, despite the hack's efforts to portray it otherwise.

The overriding question is: do the majors believe they can ram this scheme down the throats of the music consumer? They have screwed so many people in the past they are probably emboldened to think that they can force this garbage on the music consumer, whether they like it or not.

[KeenObserver]

My God, the cycle of BS is starting all over again.

There is nothing that MQA CLAIMS to do that cannot be done with open source programs.

You can compress your files with FLAC. You can use whatever algorithm you want. You can use whatever music shaping software you want to tune the music to your wishes, all without having to pay MQA for the right to do so.

MQA has been pushing for years. and has dumped millions into promoting and sustaining MQA.  That would not be happening unless they expected to make HUGE profits.  Those HUGE profits would be paid for by the music consumer. To reap the huge profits MQA would need to be the sole method for distributing music. That is MQA's business plan.

One should look at how the main financial backer of MQA made their billions and determine for themselves if they are trying to do the same to the music consumer.

The bottom line is: would the music consumer be better off with MQA?

If you are happy paying more for corrupted music, then you should embrace MQA.

[KeenObserver]

4 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

I like the way Masters sound, yes. I also find some of the attitudes in this forum somewhat extreme. Just adding a bit of balance. :-)

 

If you want to see extreme attitudes, watch the MQA behavior at RMAF 2018. MQA's ethical standards were on display.

[KeenObserver]

No one would think of transcribing their original master tapes to MQA format for archival purposes. They would be transcribed in PCM.

MQA corrupts the recording.

[KeenObserver]

5 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

That would certainly then un-include MQA, based on all previous financial reporting, and streaming market penetration via the non-player TIDAL.

 

 Speaking of Tidal, how successful have they been pushing MQA?

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

Vitriol - in the Oxford dictionary - means 'bitter critics or malice'. The fact that you type 'mQa' is one example. There are undoubtedly more examples of your 'vitriol' in this forum. As for RMAF, that was four years ago - time to move on, maybe? I mean, it's only a music technology!

 

It will never be time to move on from RMAF 2018!

RMAF showed the ethical standards of MQA which is ingrained in their business standards to this day.

MQA's business model is to impose their scheme on the music consumer whether they like it or not.

Repeating the same discredited BS talking points over and over again does not give them credence.

[KeenObserver]

TRUTH is not vitriol.