MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Lee, you have a history (well OK, one example - LHL crowdfunding) of being oblivious to the dangers others point out in the financial machinations of the audio and music industry.  The danger here is the potential to rather easily cut off the supply of non-MQA RedBook and hi res for those of us who prefer it.

 

He actually is not oblivious.  Indeed, he understands what a "digital ecosystem" is better than most.  He simply approves.  He is an insider through and through so @Rt66indierockis probably right, let him talk so music lovers can see just how anti-consumer he and his buddies are.

[R1200CL]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

Historically speaking, there's never actually been an agreement on what it means. 

I could just as truthfully claim that historically speaking, 24/48 is the threshold.

Today, 24/44.1 seems to be accepted, and I don't think I actually have an argument with that.

 

For the last 4 years there has been agreements. 

 

Master Quality Recording sources

The descriptors for the Master Quality Recording categories are as follows:

MQ-P
From a PCM master source 48 kHz/20 bit or higher; (typically 96/24 or 192/24 content)

MQ-A
From an analog master source

MQ-C
From a CD master source (44.1 kHz/16 bit content)

MQ-D
From a DSD/DSF master source (typically 2.8 or 5.6 MHz content)

[Paul R]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Good point.  I was thinking more of the likes Paul R, whose wordy prose only points to his own ignorance about MQA and unwillingness to research the basics before he opines...

 

You are welcome to moderate me out of your mutual admiration society if you wish. Facts won't change no matter how many times you repeat nonsense. People might start to agree with you, but then, loud, brash, aggressive repetition is a well known propaganda technique. You can convince people that fairies make the flowers grow if you shout long and loudly enough. 

 

Go for it...

[crenca]

I just used the report function, only the 2nd time I have ever used it.  You simply don't have a grasp of even the very basics of MQA, and now your getting personal with me.  This is not my thread, but if it was I would moderate you even though I think moderation 99% of the time is abused on internet forums.  Your either intentionally deraliing, or don't have a clue - either way the result should be the same...

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

I just used the report function, only the 2nd time I have ever used it.  You simply don't have a grasp of even the very basics of MQA, and now your getting personal with me.  This is not my thread, but if it was I would moderate you even though I think moderation 99% of the time is abused on internet forums.  Your either intentionally deraliing, or don't have a clue - either way the result should be the same...

 

I thought you considered this "snitching". Or is that just the other 99% percent of reporting posts?  😉

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

He actually is not oblivious.  Indeed, he understands what a "digital ecosystem" is better than most.  He simply approves.  He is an insider through and through so @Rt66indierockis probably right, let him talk so music lovers can see just how anti-consumer he and his buddies are.

 

I suspect he is not an "insider" but merely wants to become one, so attempts to curry favor with them.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Lee, you have a history (well OK, one example - LHL crowdfunding) of being oblivious to the dangers others point out in the financial machinations of the audio and music industry.  The danger here is the potential to rather easily cut off the supply of non-MQA RedBook and hi res for those of us who prefer it.

 

Jud,

 

This is misleading at best.  I wrote an article five years ago (March 2014) talking about the advantages of the direct to consumer model and its advantages.

 

http://thehighfidelityreport.com/death-of-a-salesman-lh-geek-out-campaigns/

 

Unfortunately I used LH Labs as an example of how consumer could save money.   They were financially healthy at the time and delivering product and well regarded for their flagship DAC.  Two years later things started to change but there was no way for anyone to foresee that.  The good news is that the  business value of a direct to consumer model has held up well.  Massdrop, PS Audio Sprout, and other examples are evidence of that.

 

As for cutting off non-MQA supply, there appears to be no danger of that.  We have Qobuz successfully launching and non-MQA source material is plentiful.

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Unfortunately I used LH Labs as an example of how consumer could save money.   They were financially healthy at the time and delivering product and well regarded for their flagship DAC.  Two years later things started to change but there was no way for anyone to foresee that.

 

Not exactly the history as I remember it.  Over at Hoffman, you devoted an entire thread to the rollout of your now infamous "Death Of A Sales Model" fan fiction.

 

Remember this thread that you started in *2013*?

 

Quote

This crowd funding campaign is on fire. Some really big additions and parts upgrades planned if the $1mm mark is met.

I have one on order with the Femto clock upgrade. I may do the linear power supply as well.

someone replies with some valid and surprisingly prescient concerns:

 

Quote

That remains to be seen. But it strikes me as the worst type of hype. I'm always leery when the hype comes that hot and heavy.

 

and you're always the reliable LHL advocate

 

Quote

In the video they list the parts they plan to use and they look pretty good to me. This is a fairly established firm as they sell the well regarded DaVinci DAC so I think its unlikely they won't ship the product.

Gavin is a pretty enthusiastic guy in person so that may come across as hype somewhat but in fact just enthusiasm over the product and the crowdfunding success.

 

You got everything you ordered, right?  LHL didn't leave you hanging like so many others?

 

[Jud]

46 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Two years later things started to change but there was no way for anyone to foresee that.

 

In your article you talked about people foreseeing bad things happening because of LHL getting ahead of themselves with the crowdfunding campaigns, and dismissed it as sour grapes from competitors who'd be swept aside by, as you stated in your title, the "Death of [their old-fashioned] Sales Model."

 

No, it wasn't two years after 2014 that "bad things started to happen."  Most of the crowdfunding had ended by then (some spilled over into 2015), and two years later people didn't have any product.  That means a lot of bad things happened in between the money being collected and two years later, which is certainly enough time to deliver some pretty ordinary types of products - DACs, DAPs, and such.  Pono, no one's idea of a well organized business, managed to do it just fine with their eponymous DAP.

 

Sorry Lee, I don't think I'm being at all misleading by stating that people in the business were saying LHL was headed for a fall and you incorrectly dismissed their concerns.

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Unfortunately I used LH Labs as an example of how consumer could save money.   They were financially healthy at the time

 

How is it you knew this?

 

Even Larry's very complimentary bio for a talk he gave at a business seminar in Taiwan said the crowdfunding campaigns had only brought the company near to break-even.  (I've linked it in the original LHL non-delivery thread if you'd like to read it.)  If you're a relatively small firm that has received $4.8 million in advance payments (the amount Crunchbase reports coming in from the campaigns - also linked in the same thread) for products you haven't yet spent the development, manufacturing and distribution funds for, and it only gets you near break-even, how financially healthy are you?

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

I just used the report function, only the 2nd time I have ever used it.  You simply don't have a grasp of even the very basics of MQA, and now your getting personal with me.  This is not my thread, but if it was I would moderate you even though I think moderation 99% of the time is abused on internet forums.  Your either intentionally deraliing, or don't have a clue - either way the result should be the same...

 

crenca writes the above after seeing this comment from Paul R

 

"Facts won't change no matter how many times you repeat nonsense. People might start to agree with you, but then, loud, brash, aggressive repetition is a well known propaganda technique. You can convince people that fairies make the flowers grow if you shout long and loudly enough."

 

To crenca, Paul R "is getting personal with me."

 

But if crenca lays into Lee S for the umpteenth time, as below, it's not personal, "it's just true".

 

 

On 2/6/2019 at 1:06 PM, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Mentioning the employer is going way over the line.  This is the third time this has happened.  I am considering leaving the forum.

 

crenca said:

You were actually never part of it anyways.  Industry sycophants and insiders are only here to sell things and insider wants/needs, not actually take part in the process which helps consumers reach their high Fidelity goals. Your participation here is in fact anti-consumer.  This is not a disrespectful observation, it's just true.

 

I'm fairly certain that Paul R believes his observations about crenca are equally "true".

 

To note again what's obvious to many who stray into this forum looking for enlightenment on a complex subject: The discussion is dominated by a small number of highly partisan and self-regarding individuals who are convinced that the points of view they represent are inarguable facts. Those who don't see it their way can be maligned with ad hominem assaults. But not them. Their assailants should be sanctioned.

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

[Jud]

Andrew, the stuff about bias may have merit (the reported post was eyerollingly mild from a long-time participant on these forums), but the segue into saying everyone here is biased against MQA would go over a lot better if you were willing to engage with some of the very clear technical analysis done by people on the forum.  If you need links, I'm sure people would be happy to provide them.

[mansr]

59 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

As for cutting off non-MQA supply, there appears to be no danger of that. 

It is their stated intent to become the sole distribution format. I guess you don't have much confidence in the company.

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

crenca writes the above after seeing this comment from Paul R

 

"Facts won't change no matter how many times you repeat nonsense. People might start to agree with you, but then, loud, brash, aggressive repetition is a well known propaganda technique. You can convince people that fairies make the flowers grow if you shout long and loudly enough."

 

To crenca, Paul R "is getting personal with me."

 

But if crenca lays into Lee S for the umpteenth time, as below, it's not personal, "it's just true".

 

 

 

crenca said:

You were actually never part of it anyways.  Industry sycophants and insiders are only here to sell things and insider wants/needs, not actually take part in the process which helps consumers reach their high Fidelity goals. Your participation here is in fact anti-consumer.  This is not a disrespectful observation, it's just true.

 

I'm fairly certain that Paul R believes his observations about crenca are equally "true".

 

To note again what's obvious to many who stray into this forum looking for enlightenment on a complex subject: The discussion is dominated by a small number of highly partisan and self-regarding individuals who are convinced that the points of view they represent are inarguable facts. Those who don't see it their way can be maligned with ad hominem assaults. But not them. Their assailants should be sanctioned.

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

 

There observations, opinions, and then there are facts and truth.  You and Paul R speculate/opine (such as your political explanations of MQA and the consumer reaction to it, Paul's conspiracy theory that MQA is a some kind of hampered implementation of otherwise good tech) at best - Paul R has been just making stuff up (for whatever reason). When confronted with the truth you take offense. 

 

Clearly I have gotten under your skin by explicating the fact that you don't have the technical knowledge/experience to support your (and your magazines) erroneous assertions about MQA.  That's not personal and ad hominem, it's just the truth.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

32 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

To note again what's obvious to many who stray into this forum looking for enlightenment on a complex subject: The discussion is dominated by a small number of highly partisan and self-regarding individuals who are convinced that the points of view they represent are inarguable facts. Those who don't see it their way can be maligned with ad hominem assaults. But not them. Their assailants should be sanctioned.

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

Ah, don't sweat the small stuff Andrew. People act crazy in places like this because they are essentially anonymous, and that makes it like a vast playground where they can act in ways that would get them "punched in the snoot" in a non-virtual world. Ideas become funny things; where people believe they have to defend them and if someone has a dissenting opinion then it is one's moral obligation to go correct 'em.  The secret to letting it go?  It happens to everyone sooner or later.

 

My best guess is some of the folks here are trying to use the forum to build up their audio-world reputations, and have devolved to the point of targeting people like John Atkinson from Stereophile. In actual fact, there are a few people here who could challenge JA, technical chops to technical chops. Those people are *not* the ones raising a ruckus, though Archimago put a lot of this together three or four years ago. (And yes, he is one of the ones who could go toe to toe with JA and keep up technically.:) 

 

In essence- the ones who are making the loudest rude noises don't appear to me to have done much original research. Seems like Archimago put the research together, people like EslDude, Miska, Jud, and Mansr, among others, pretty much validated it. Chris took on being the face of the issue at RMAF and took plenty of shots from the "heavy artillery."  

 

All over MQA, a different way to distribute "better" sound, and which *could* have been great thing. Still may, though that infuriates  particular crowd here. Same arguments were made over FLAC vs ALAC, WAV vs AIFF,  SMPS vs Linear, and the ever popular, oh, you only spent $xxx on that? You are NOT an audiophile.  The vinyl guys were particularly cutting when they swept in with a sharp angle of attack. (I will get killed for puns one of these days, but who can resist?) 

 

(shrug) - Here, have a virtual Sam Adams and enjoy.  It seems to work best if you treat most of these conversations like pub conversations anyway. If there are no math or charts flying around, it's just a pub chat.  

 

 

-Paul 

 

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Seems like Archimago put the research together, people like EslDude, Miska, Jud, and Mansr, among others, pretty much validated it...

 

 

Just one of the ways you have things exactly backward... *sigh*

[fas42]

I just find it remarkable at how much energy is thrown into this MQA stuff - it's an irrelevant blip in the audio timeline, Just Another Method to try and make people's playback "sound better" - by foolin' around around with the source end. IME, the reproduction chain is where the real action is - why concern oneself with trying to compensate for lack of integrity in the reproduction mechanism by 'pre-distorting' the material, when the smart move is to make the system that presents the sound work better.

[rando]

20 hours ago, rickca said:

I thought this thread was about MQA.

 

I thought this thread was actually exhibiting something other than overly wordy butthurt from the usual suspects.  Not clear on what your intent was there. 

 

 

 

 

For cripes sakes, my sentiments concerning this thread aren't so hard hearted I'd fail to pause long enough to offer condolences to @Rt66indierock instead of brushing past him to spout off with renewed vigor.  

[tmtomh]

I see @Lee Scoggins has been busy here again.

 

Let me just reiterate a few points that I think are directly germane to his latest comments:

• It is indeed possible that the extra headroom afforded by higher sample rates can result in different sound than with a 44.1kHz sample rate, because the filters don't have to be as steep - or to put it another way, the frequency/phase linearity tradeoff in the audible range is not an issue. If valid empirical studies demonstrate that, I for one certainly am open to that result.
• However, I know of no evidence - in sampling theory, human auditory science, or valid empirical trials - that there is any use, or audible difference, in the various "over-44.1k" sample rates beyond 48k. In other words, a 48k sample rate just about doubles the ultrasonic "working area" for filter rolloff compared to 44.1k, and with modern filters I see no evidence that providing further headroom via 88.2k, 96k and so on achieves anything. (Not arguing against higher sample rates for recording or mastering; talking about final, mixed-down consumer product here.)
• I am not in any way being pedantic when I note that the studies Lee cites only say listeners could detect differences between 44.1k and 88.2k. The studies did not say whether or not these differences were significant - to put it more crudely, whether listeners reliably preferred one over the other. In this vein it is worth noting that when you downsample high-res PCM to redbook - particularly non-integer conversion from 192k or 96k to 44.1k - you get a slightly more dynamic (on paper) result, particularly with music that has had some digital limiting applied, as the resampling process randomizes the peaks. In this case, the lower-res version can make a case for sounding slightly better. I'm not saying it does - the point is that different does not necessarily predict better.
• Along those lines, I'm not aware of any studies showing that listeners reliably prefer lossy-compressed higher-res aka MQA over lossless rebook. In other words, the case for higher sample rates is not sufficient to support the case for MQA, since MQA adulterates both the ultrasonic frequencies and some of the lower bis of the original PCM samples.
• Finally, on a more non-technical note, Lee is on record repeatedly, here and in multiple venues, saying that a key benefit of MQA is that it is an "ecosystem." And MQA's own reps are on record saying even more pointedly that the benefit for the record labels is that they don't have to "give away their Crown Jewels" if they securely wrap up the high-res PCM in MQA. More than this, Lee regularly has used this "business case" for MQA as a diversion in response to the technical objections about MQA's lossiness and DRM. So after all that extolling of MQA based precisely on MQA's aspirations to replace and supplant conventional PCM in the high-res marketplace, it is disingenuous for him to now say there's no danger of that happening.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

How is it you knew this?

 

Even Larry's very complimentary bio for a talk he gave at a business seminar in Taiwan said the crowdfunding campaigns had only brought the company near to break-even.  (I've linked it in the original LHL non-delivery thread if you'd like to read it.)  If you're a relatively small firm that has received $4.8 million in advance payments (the amount Crunchbase reports coming in from the campaigns - also linked in the same thread) for products you haven't yet spent the development, manufacturing and distribution funds for, and it only gets you near break-even, how financially healthy are you?

 

I was just going from the amount of money they raised at that point in time.  As a private firm, there was no way to get at financial statements.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

In your article you talked about people foreseeing bad things happening because of LHL getting ahead of themselves with the crowdfunding campaigns, and dismissed it as sour grapes from competitors who'd be swept aside by, as you stated in your title, the "Death of [their old-fashioned] Sales Model."

 

No, it wasn't two years after 2014 that "bad things started to happen."  Most of the crowdfunding had ended by then (some spilled over into 2015), and two years later people didn't have any product.  That means a lot of bad things happened in between the money being collected and two years later, which is certainly enough time to deliver some pretty ordinary types of products - DACs, DAPs, and such.  Pono, no one's idea of a well organized business, managed to do it just fine with their eponymous DAP.

 

Sorry Lee, I don't think I'm being at all misleading by stating that people in the business were saying LHL was headed for a fall and you incorrectly dismissed their concerns.

 

I don't recall reading about major concerns in early 2014.  In fact, a group of us in Atlanta were receiving shipments of Geek Pulses (the local audio club was one of the biggest initial orders with 26 units).  I think it was our local President John was the first to tell me about it. I thought the business approach was interesting and I was in the market for a less expensive DAC so I put in an order thinking $200 or so was a reasonable sum to risk.  Of course Gavin went nuts and every month or two sent out an email suggesting yet another upgrade.  I had around $800 into the game and received the Pulse Infinity with "naked resistors".  If there were credible concerns then that I was aware of, then I would have chosen another company to discuss.  

 

Also, there were sour grapes from retailers I knew at the time and from Stereophile who was probably protecting their advertising base to some extent.  At the time, two groups of business were threatened by this new model: the distributor and the retailer.  Fortunately, now we have manufacturers happily supporting kickstarter campaigns and sites like Massdrop.

 

So I made a decision to write about LH in the article because:

 

1.  It was interesting from a strategy consulting viewpoint, ie. new business model with advantages.

2.  It would be an opinion piece that my publisher Chris thought made sense.  He encouraged me to write about it.

3.  The company appeared to be real in that I had met Larry and Gavin at RMAF and Atlanta Axpona and they seemed to be legit.

4.  They had already started shipping units to our local audio club.  Everybody received their units on the initial order in fact so no red flags there.

 

It was reasonable decision based on what we knew at the time.  It's easy to second guess this decsion five years later.

[crenca]

31 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

• Finally, on a more non-technical note, Lee is on record repeatedly, here and in multiple venues, saying that a key benefit of MQA is that it is an "ecosystem." And MQA's own reps are on record saying even more pointedly that the benefit for the record labels is that they don't have to "give away their Crown Jewels" if they securely wrap up the high-res PCM in MQA. More than this, Lee regularly has used this "business case" for MQA as a diversion in response to the technical objections about MQA's lossiness and DRM. So after all that extolling of MQA based precisely on MQA's aspirations to replace and supplant conventional PCM in the high-res marketplace, it is disingenuous for him to now say there's no danger of that happening.

 

Right.  Another way to say that "MQA begins and ends with DRM", is to say that "MQA begins and ends with a walled garden digital ecosystem".  Industry insiders understood this from the very beginning (just as Lee does), and this understanding is the crux of "the business case" as Andrew Quint's editor explained 3 years ago in his "The View From 10,000 feet" article...

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

for products you haven't yet spent the development, manufacturing and distribution funds for, and it only gets you near break-even, how financially healthy are you?

 

This isn't accurate.  Larry and Gavin were showing the Geek Pulse boards at RMAF already.  The Pulse had been fairly far ahead in development which is another factor in my own personal decision to send in money.  Of course the next campaign for the Wave was a disaster.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This isn't accurate.  Larry and Gavin were showing the Geek Pulse boards at RMAF already.  The Pulse had been fairly far ahead in development which is another factor in my own personal decision to send in money.  Of course the next campaign for the Wave was a disaster.

 

This is off topic - there is another thread about this, please post all this detail there.

[Lee Scoggins]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

This is off topic - there is another thread about this, please post all this detail there.

 

Talk to @Jud, he brought it up.