MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

43 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

All that to say the same MQA lingo. 

 

My only response is that I have the facts on my side. I can't use alternative facts to present a counter point. The word truth is in the title of my presentation. 

 

I hope I'm reading you well enough to know you weren't really expecting a departure from the typical disingenuousness, were you?

[KeenObserver]

I think the efforts to put a spin on MQA's behavior at RMAF is extremely telling.

[mansr]

55 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

This is incorrect.  Chris purported to take an objective look but the points I lay out show bias on almost every slide.  He did at least owe the audience a counterpoint to each argument.

It's not biased if it's true.

[mansr]

55 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

I disagree. This may apply moreso to the early Napster days perhaps, where it was apparently so easy for everyone to get stuff free?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the big growth in streaming MAY be due to those people saying 'can't be bothered anymore' with going to the illegal sites anymore. So they stopped getting stuff free and just took up paid streaming...

You and Chris are actually in agreement. He's saying that someone visiting a pirate site wasn't going to pay for that copy today.

 

There are also studies showing that regular pirates actually spend more than average on legal purchases. Many buy legally when they can, but when hindered by geographical restrictions, release windows, and other nonsense, they will turn to piracy. That's all the music and film companies' own doing. If you refuse to sell, don't act surprised when people don't buy.

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

This thread is the gift that just keeps on giving.

 

This thread would probably have died if the MQA shills had not repeated the MQA mantra over and over again.  They continue to give truth seekers reason to continue examining MQA.

[Shadders]

54 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's the artist, not the consumer.  I think if they get a new revenue stream, they will share some of that with the artist.  I've talked to a few enlightened label execs and they realize the current streaming payout is untenable.

Hi,

The labels are already allowing streaming, so how does MQA provide a new revenue stream ?

 

The number of people interested in high resolution is negligible - hifi is in decline - the age demographics for hifi shows is predominantly 40+.

 

So all we are left with is..... streaming as it exists now.

 

As before, the CNBC article shows that current business model does not provide a viable long term business for the streaming entity, nor vast fortunes for the labels.

 

So, exactly how will MQA provide such a profitable revenue stream ???

 

The only possibility is DRM.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[FredericV]

I come to the same conclusion as with the owner of the secret group who was banned a long time ago, and was discovered to use fake accounts here at CA and lie about it:

(1) - either our current non-banned "fanboy" has an affiliation with MQA (or some form of participation in the company), and therefore it makes sense that he writes ( or proxies ) such lengthy reply -  he benefits in some way

(2) - but the fb claims this is NOT the case, and therefore it makes no sense at all to do all this effort unless you have some kind of manic obsession, and by consequence you probably tick a DSM checkbox

It does not make any sense that a regular member would do the damage control for MQA and try to reduce the fallout after the RMAF fiasco. Unless (1) is true.

So yes, somebody just decides to start defending against the negativity .... like this case:

 

Let's not forget both managed the secret FB group. I rest my case.

[asdf1000]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

Many buy legally when they can, but when hindered by geographical restrictions, release windows, and other nonsense, they will turn to piracy. That's all the music and film companies' own doing. If you refuse to sell, don't act surprised when people don't buy.

 

Hopefully the labels see these same studies you talk about.

 

And hopefully they re-do old contracts with silly geographic restrictions and open the floodgates to make everything accessible to everyone willing to pay for streaming. More revenue for them and the artists hopefully.

 

And hopefully new deals don’t have these silly restrictions.

 

And hopefully MQA goes away.

[fas42]

MQA is on target to die because because it's not open - that alone should guarantee its demise. Oracle attempted to put its own, proprietary, version of an online system out there, just as the Internet started to gather steam - guess everyone here can remember that product, ... the juggernaut of huge numbers of people getting excited, or upset about some concept is what makes things happen - if music is largely wallpaper for most people then MQA may succeed - because it doesn't matter either way, for them.

[asdf1000]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Oracle attempted to put its own, proprietary, version of an online system out there, just as the Internet started to gather steam

 

Interesting since MQA was conceived before these last 3 years of industry double digit growth. 

 

So hopefully that means the labels are less motivated with MQA today, compared to when the idea of MQA was initially pitched to them.... as long as this chart keeps heading up, it should be good news for us that want MQA to go away.

 

Obviously from the CEO of RIAA’s comments, some form of future DRM may still be on the labels’ minds, but if the chart keeps going up, there should be less and less motivation to do anything drastic...

 

The bad news is, as long as the chart keeps heading up and up, less motivation for Spotify or Apple Music to offer CD quality or better. Can’t have ya cake and eat it too I guess hehe

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I hope I'm reading you well enough to know you weren't really expecting a departure from the typical disingenuousness, were you?

A guy can dream 🙂

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

False, the desktop pounding was done solely by Derek. No one else pounded the desks.

 

He seemed like at least two people pounding their fists into their applesauce. It seemed like applesauce and mashed potatoes and peas were flying everywhere. But who knows that was just my impression. I thought that perhaps a local nursing home had a community outing. Who knows. Who cares, it registered a strong impression. Your continued perseveration does nothing to change my impression.

 

My suggestion is to give up the Internet and go back to playing scrabble, not that scrabble isn't a great game, but if by your age you haven't figured out this whole open data format thing on the Web, then you might not get your driving license renewed  

[Ralf11]

you are in fine form today!

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

if by your age you haven't figured out this whole open data format thing on the Web

 

Um... my intention is not to suggest that older people ought not be on the Internet at all, and having been at many technical conferences with very heated debates (frequently with very senior scientists well into their 70s) the behavior displayed was frankly shocking and out of the norm for polite discourse, or even heated arguments. Typically one would call this childish, even infantile, and similarly a two year old might pound their fists into their applesauce and peas, so let's just say that this behavior is not adult, and anyone who understands the web ought know that video recordings live on forever. @Lee Scoggins is yet again giving us supposed slide by slide review of @The Computer Audiophile's talk when anyone can go and watch for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Whether one guy pounds his fists or another guy beats a dead horse, it all seems like pounding -- dead tree, dead horse, who cares? ... and still no detailed technical explanation. Pounding fists and waving hands is all I'm seeing.

[Ralf11]

I will suggest that -some- older people ought not be on the Internet at all, tho they can cause less damage there than in the physical world.

 

Age, and stress, can peel layers off the onion of personality - revealing the child within... an inner child which should have been stifled, or raised in the manner that W C Fields suggested.

 

I certainly agree with your perceptions of the behavior at the seminar.  I have seen scientists do worse, but only herpetologists...

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I certainly agree with your perceptions of the behavior at the seminar.  I have seen scientists do worse, but only herpetologists...

Well, this is herpelipotology.

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

...

 

IP encumbered data formats cannot be resisted too strongly. MQA doesn’t provide access to its format without NDA — that’s unacceptable.

Philosophically, I agree with you. But I also have IP out there that I want to get paid for. Mercenary of me, but still

 

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Since you might not have been following this too closely, it’s significantly @mansr who has published his own reverse engineering (if that’s the proper term) which has enabled a significant degree of technical analysis. 

 

I was aware of that, but as a policy, I neither confirm nor deny that I might have done something a wee bit similar. He is quite brave to come forward with his findings, as are others. and he definitely went further than I might or might not have done. MQA had such promise, but it appears that it may have false promise, or at least, implemented in such as way those promises never came to be. 

 

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

SACD and DVD were IP encumbered and I remember when I couldn’t play the content I purchased on my Mac — thankfully folks like @ted_b and others have allowed us to convert our SACD disks to files on hard drives — and for this reason alone I’ve purchased lots of SACDs. Otherwise I download. 

 

MQA is something we as customers need to resist in the strongest of terms.

 

 

MQA?  We don't need no stinking MQA? Okay, how far are you willing to go in your resistance... 

 

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

@The Computer Audiophile was treated in a shockingly rude fashion by a rabid pack of MQA  supporters pounding their fists on tables. @Lee Scoggins has been trying to defend MQA and it’s supporters as nauseum, and frankly the way he is treated is what he has brought about by months of posts. At some point rude behavior begets rude reaction and we are beyond that point. 

 

Just some context. I enjoy having no skin in the game and being able to call it purely as I see it  

 

This was intolerable. Chris must have more patience than Job. I can' believe that wasn't somehow a setup. Either they are total, appalling, assholes, or... someone pulled their chain before the presentation and had them all riled up. Either way, this incident is utterly unacceptable behavior.  Whether it has anything to do with MQA or not. 

 

-Paul

 

Aw now you gone and done it, I have to listen to some of this later tonight.  There is a best of AlCapone on Qobuz...

https://open.qobuz.com/album/fp2v1dbecolfc

 

 

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I was aware of that, but as a policy, I neither confirm nor deny that I might have done something a wee bit similar. He is quite brave to come forward with his findings, as are others. and he definitely went further than I might or might not have done.

I have done nothing unlawful, so I fail to see how reporting what I've seen is in any way brave.

[KeenObserver]

"(marketing) It creates a feature on the hardware that tells the consumer that the file is full MQA authenticated via a light and the thinking is that consumers could desire that light to know they were listening to a better sound experience."

 

There is just so much BS on Lee's diatribe that it is going to take time to counter every point (as if that's necessary at this point).

But the quote above kind of says it all.  You need the blue light to make you believe you are listening to a better sound experience.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

 

 

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

I have done nothing unlawful, so I fail to see how reporting what I've seen is in any way brave.

 

If you reverse engineered the software, you probably did something that is actionable. I do not know, and I am not a lawyer or giving any legal advice. 

 

Brave anyway, to oppose something you do not like.

 

-Paul 

 

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Philosophically, I agree with you. But I also have IP out there that I want to get paid for. Mercenary of me, but still

 

 

Right, so this technical arguments about MQA are total BS the best I can tell...

 

So let's say they do have a great way to "time deblur" the ADC ... ok then sell the software to the studios to process their old masters giving a new deblurred master.

 

Or sell it to Tidal and let Tidal distribute a "deblurred" version. 

 

No need to involve my DAC.

 

(I'm still pissed that iFi removed DSD512 in lieu of MQA in the new firmware ... bye!)

 

There is nothing fundamentally new about deblurring ... even combining that with compression aka JPEG2000 ... whaaat? 2000 that's 19 years ago!

 

I'm not anti IP, and the status of software post-WWW is much better than pre-WWW. The WWW exists because HTML and HTTP are both simple and open.

 

Now if MQA really spent millions developing its software, they should've hired @mansr (how much did you spend "documenting" it?

[jabbr]

33 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I have seen scientists do worse, but only herpetologists...

 

I remember going out for drinks with a couple of astronomers who had differing views on whether Pluto was a planet! I heated discussion occurred but I only remember the Tequila   What I remember is thinking: can someone make a career out of studying one planet? Years later this debate came out in the press ... (not the one at the bar)!

[Lee Scoggins]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Right, so this technical arguments about MQA are total BS the best I can tell...

 

So let's say they do have a great way to "time deblur" the ADC ... ok then sell the software to the studios to process their old masters giving a new deblurred master.

 

Or sell it to Tidal and let Tidal distribute a "deblurred" version. 

 

No need to involve my DAC.

 

(I'm still pissed that iFi removed DSD512 in lieu of MQA in the new firmware ... bye!)

 

There is nothing fundamentally new about deblurring ... even combining that with compression aka JPEG2000 ... whaaat? 2000 that's 19 years ago!

 

I'm not anti IP, and the status of software post-WWW is much better than pre-WWW. The WWW exists because HTML and HTTP are both simple and open.

 

Now if MQA really spent millions developing its software, they should've hired @mansr (how much did you spend "documenting" it?

 

Some corrections here:

 

1.  They have sold the software to the studios which came after testing done by all the individual labels.  MQA offers a cloud service so the studios can batch process files that way.

 

2.  There is new innovation here as MQA has invested time in building a deblurring filter for most of the studio ADCs.  Then they further figured out how to use machine learning to ID the ADC and deploy a deblurring filter.

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Some corrections here:

 

1.  They have sold the software to the studios which came after testing done by all the individual labels.  MQA offers a cloud service so the studios can batch process files that way.

 

2.  There is new innovation here as MQA has invested time in building a deblurring filter for most of the studio ADCs.  Then they further figured out how to use machine learning to ID the ADC and deploy a deblurring filter.

 

If that's really an innovation, then why don't I see 24/192 or whatever files that have been deblurred? If that's the innovation, then why do you want to f*ck up my DAC?

 

err DAC!

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

If you reverse engineered the software, you probably did something that is actionable.

I very much doubt that. I never agreed, even by clicking a web link, to any restrictions. Nothing I have published is a derivative of anything subject to copyright or patent.