MQA is Vaporware

[John Dyson]

28 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm okay with members having different opinions on formats but the argument was not about 16/96.  There are few files encoded in that anyway and maybe zero commercial releases.  The argument was about 24/48 versus 24/96.  24/96 is clearly better.  The higher sampling rates do matter.

 

Your tinnitus may be impacting the frequency range but recent research suggests we hear timing distortions down to 5 microseconds well into our 70s.  Maybe you are doing okay on hearing the timing elements.

Well -- I must have mistyped -- because I was thinking 96k/16 when I typed 96k/24...  However, that is my mistake and confusion (I have been under blinding and overwhelming pressure...)  Can we forgive my mistake ? :-).

 

John

 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Quite true.  Randy, you and I like the sound of MQA all else being equal.  Intelligent members may disagree with us but they would try to find out why we prefer the MQA.  What experiences have we had?  What were the conditions?  Could it be that Lee and Randy are on to something?  Instead, here it is a religious war and we are accused of being "shills" and worse and subjected to endless personal attacks.

That’s your take away? Shows you’ve understood almost nothing in this thread. No one here gives a whit if you personally like the sound of MQA. But that hasn’t been your position here.

 

You’ve defended it on economic, marketing, and technical grounds. You’ve consistently shown a lack of understanding of how it works, and refuse to reply directly to well based technical agurments against it and against what you’ve written about it, all the while circling back to your unsubstantiated claims for it. 
 

You’ve also switched your position more than once. You started out saying it was superior sounding to other formats, then switched to saying that other hi-res might be it’s equal, or even superior. You are aware that the only objective study of MQA that’s been conducted has shown listeners don’t prefer the sound of it in blind testing, yet you still argue that it is somehow necessary for the future of audio. 

If your position had been “I like the sound of MQA” no one would have called you a shill. 

 

I don’t agree with some of the name calling, but you seem amazingly unaware that your circular unsubstantiated claims sound like the claims someone who IS working for MQA public relations would make. 

You’d have a lot more credibility if you didn’t often sound like you seem to think the only source of believeable information about MQA are MQA Ltd. and Bob Stuart. 

[KeenObserver]

Repeating the same buzzwords,  misdirection, and veiled claims that have been shown to be not so,  over and over.  That is not fact finding.

That is MARKETING.

[Ralf11]

Scroggie is doing MUCKETING, not Marketing

 

 

and BTW, the agree to dis-agree concept does not apply when putinistic propaganda efforts are involved

[FredericV]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Repeating the same buzzwords,  misdirection, and veiled claims that have been shown to be not so,  over and over.  That is not fact finding.

That is MARKETING.

 

By law he has to disclose his affiliation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influencer_marketing
 

Quote

In the United States, influence marketing is treated by the Federal Trade Commission as a form of paid endorsement, governed under the rules for native advertising; the agency applies established truth-in-advertising standards to such advertising and establishes requirements for disclosure on the part of endorsers (influencers).

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

By law he has to disclose his affiliation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influencer_marketing
 

 

Let's please not add amateur lawyering to our list of sins.

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

and BTW, the agree to dis-agree concept does not apply when putinistic propaganda efforts are involved

I'd rather say it doesn't apply when facts are involved.

[botrytis]

Just now, Jud said:

 

Let's please not add amateur lawyering to our list of sins.

 

Wait, we have sins? Since when?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

Wait, we have sins? Since when?

Since that unfortunate incident with the snake, according to some.

[KeenObserver]

I would agree to disagree on something like a cable having magical qualities.  Unless someone got in my face trying to convince me of the magical qualities.  I don't really have a personal stake because I do not have to buy it.

MQA is a different matter.  As MQA envisions it,  they want to control the entire music chain.  And collect royalties all along the way.  This would be borne by the music consuming public.  I am a subset of the music consuming public, so this personally affects me.

Looking at MQA's financial statements, between 2016 and 2017 they lost nearly sixteen million pounds. It appears that they secured a five million pound loan to continue operations.  Looking at these figures, it would seem that MQA expects to make substantial financial gains from MQA for them to continue.  Again, this would be borne on the backs of the music consuming public.

[KeenObserver]

Looking at MQA's less than forthright marketing of their product and their behavior at RMAF,  these are not the people that I would like to see controlling the future of music distribution.

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I think it is because you fail to answer technical questions, whose answers would mean you would have to acknowledge that MQA is a sham/scam.

 

For the preference - no one doubts your preference, but then Brian Lucey did state that MQA introduces harmonics, which may be the reason you like the MQA sound.

 

If you like harmonics, then great - many people like the sound of valves etc., but this does not make MQA a superior format which makes their false claims valid, it is just a sound process like Q-Sound, or other effects processor.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Nope, it's the extra clarity I hear.  Lucey is not a credible source so I doubt any of his claims with respect to MQA.

[Lee Scoggins]

52 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Looking at MQA's less than forthright marketing of their product and their behavior at RMAF,  these are not the people that I would like to see controlling the future of music distribution.

 

What a crock!  There was no bad behavior at RMAF (well, outside of Derek's unnecessary desk pounding but he's not part of MQA).  Chris presented some very biased slides under the guise of being objective and the MQA team called him on some key points.  He then got flustered and left the room before there could be any Q&A discussion.

[rickca]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Lucey is not a credible source

Why are you a more credible source?

[KeenObserver]

Some people say that they prefer MQA encoded music.  This may be so.  But I think that this is because it is different.  MQA may in fact change the sound to something that some people prefer.  But it does in fact change from the original master.  Most people don't prefer this.

The controlling point is that no one would consider archiving their masters on MQA.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, rickca said:

Why are you a more credible source?

 

Because I don't have any vested interest in this like Lucey and other mastering engineers who are worried about revenue streams.

[KeenObserver]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What a crock!  There was no bad behavior at RMAF (well, outside of Derek's unnecessary desk pounding but he's not part of MQA).  Chris presented some very biased slides under the guise of being objective and the MQA team called him on some key points.  He then got flustered and left the room before there could be any Q&A discussion.

 

People should watch the video and make their own judgement, rather than accept your judgement.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

... not a credible source...

 

 

Today must be Irony Day

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Nope, it's the extra clarity I hear.  Lucey is not a credible source so I doubt any of his claims with respect to MQA.

 

Brian Lucey is just one of many who hear the same thing. He can't be a credible source to you after all he was shown MQA in 2014, rejected it and wasn't shy about telling people why.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What a crock!  There was no bad behavior at RMAF (well, outside of Derek's unnecessary desk pounding but he's not part of MQA).  Chris presented some very biased slides under the guise of being objective and the MQA team called him on some key points.  He then got flustered and left the room before there could be any Q&A discussion.

Lee, I highly recommend you ask anyone outside the MQA ltd office what they thought about the MQA representatives' behavior. Based on your above comment, I willing to bet it will shock you.

 

Also, I presented facts. Just because the facts aren't on the side of MQA doesn't mean I delivered a biased presentation. I'm still searching for where I was "called out" on anything. Rudely interrupted, yes, but far from called out. 

 

Please tell me what I was called out on and what was biased in my slides. I'll wait right here. 

 

P.S. Jbara showed his cards right under your nose and you still missed it. MQA is about money. He stated that people would no longer go into making music without MQA to help them make money (comical as it sounds). Think about that Lee. MQA is a way for people to make money and has zero to do with improving anything for the consumer that can't be done without MQA.

 

Then again, you're probably still pushing the agenda that Sony invented SACD because of sound quality and it had zero to do with patents running out for redbook CD.

[tmtomh]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What a crock!  There was no bad behavior at RMAF (well, outside of Derek's unnecessary desk pounding but he's not part of MQA).  Chris presented some very biased slides under the guise of being objective and the MQA team called him on some key points.  He then got flustered and left the room before there could be any Q&A discussion.

 

What a crock! Your representation of the events is easily refuted by the video, which is available online for anyone to watch.

 

@Lee Scoggins, perhaps if you didn't spend so much time posting in this thread, you might finally free up the time to do that technical research on MQA that you repeatedly promised to do after you first showed up here flogging your web article on the business-model benefits of MQA.

[MikeyFresh]

29 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

What a crock! Your representation of the events is easily refuted by the video, which is available online for anyone to watch.

 

 

A classic case of sometimes the truth hurts, that video speaks volumes.

 

29 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

@Lee Scoggins, perhaps if you didn't spend so much time posting in this thread, you might finally free up the time to do that technical research on MQA that you repeatedly promised to do after you first showed up here flogging your web article on the business-model benefits of MQA.

 

Either Lee has a very poor/selective memory, or he's convinced himself that as sufficient time goes by no one really remembers anything, allowing him to simply ignore the past while continuing to offer the equivalent of alternative facts in this thread. His misrepresentation of the appalling behavior of MQA Ltd.'s official representatives at RMAF18 is yet another example of such. 

 

Since Lee is dredging up RMAF18 in purely disingenuous fashion, I'll restate all over again that Jbara et al (read: Lee's buddy from Atlanta) could not have been worse brand ambassadors for MQA on that day, atrocious planning and execution there, they looked like dummy amateurs. I'm surprised Richemont didn't dismiss them shortly thereafter, though in the case of Jbara it's pretty telling. He is there due to his deep ties to the record labels, nothing more, he has no past track record of building businesses from the ground up in a senior leadership role.

 

[Paul R]

43 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Lee, I highly recommend you ask anyone outside the MQA ltd office what they thought about the MQA representatives' behavior. Based on your above comment, I willing to bet it will shock you.

 

Also, I presented facts. Just because the facts aren't on the side of MQA doesn't mean I delivered a biased presentation. I'm still searching for where I was "called out" on anything. Rudely interrupted, yes, but far from called out. 

 

Please tell me what I was called out on and what was biased in my slides. I'll wait right here. 

 

You were challenged, but not "called out" by any means. I would have resorted to physically smacking the crap out of people who had the unmitigated gall to talk to me that way. The stories have reverberated around the entire audiophile world. 

 

In short, you did good. 

 

Quote

 

P.S. Jbara showed his cards right under your nose and you still missed it. MQA is about money. He stated that people would no longer go into making music without MQA to help them make money (comical as it sounds). Think about that Lee. MQA is a way for people to make money and has zero to do with improving anything for the consumer that can't be done without MQA.

 

Then again, you're probably still pushing the agenda that Sony invented SACD because of sound quality and it had zero to do with patents running out for redbook CD.

 

Here is where I get a little lost.  MQA is, and always has been about making money. The trade off to the music loving world was to be that the labels would have released higher quality music from master tapes, and more of it. A side benefit (to the music lovers) is that MQA was supposed to sound better and take up less bandwidth than conventional files. Another side benefit (this time to the labels) is that the music industry could charge us yet again for the same catalog, in yet another format.  And of course, MQA the company could license the shit out of the technology, a trick they learned well from the video industry with MLP. 

 

All this was known from the day they announced MQA. Nothing has changed, except shrouded facts have been uncovered. Good journalism I would say. 

 

And if widespread adoption of MQA ever  does happen, it won't happen with the current implementation of MQA. That ship has sailed. 

 

So what is the war here all about really? Just people blowing off steam? 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[Ralf11]

MQA offers no benefit to consumers.

 

MQA is a Trojan Horse for DRM.

 

there's your steam

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

MQA offers no benefit to consumers.

 

MQA is a Trojan Horse for DRM.

 

there's your steam

I can see that.

 

I am not sure I understand the personal connection.