MQA is Vaporware

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Only one side here is shouting and launching rhetoric, the other sides are not.  Obviously, lack of communication must be the fault of those not shouting or launching rhetoric or personal insults.

 

Right, makes sense to someone I suppose. 

 

"The discussion" is not just here; it's also in the rest of the audiophile press/universe. Other than here, little "real discussion" has taken place. There are a few examples, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. The more general phenomenon has been one of articles just echoing MQA marketing speak and taking whatever MQA Ltd., or it's representatives say at face value. In fact, even when politely challenging "non-factual" assertations in many of these articles, the response is just further regurgitation of what "Bob" says, with little or no critical analysis.

[Lee Scoggins]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

But what purpose does the MQA serve? I only see it serving purpose of license money for the encoders and decoders.

 

But this is where I think MQA is clever.  It also serves to create a premium tier of streaming service which enables the label to make more money and share that with artists who are underpaid under streaming.  It also serves to align interests to create a bigger market for hirez.

 

It's a clever extension of each stakeholder saying "what's in it for me" with the music ecosystem.

 

The problem with free things like FLAC is there is no money in it for most people.  That makes it hard to gain wider adoption.

 

 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

The problem with free things like FLAC is there is no money in it for most people.  That makes it hard to gain wider adoption.

What is Lee smoking, and where can I get some?

[Paul R]

10 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Not sure what you are trying to achieve. MQA Ltd made claims that were proven false.

 

Copy protection - it has always something that the audio and video industry will pursue, from LP's in the 1980's, CD copybit, watermarking, rootkits etc. Same for DVD and Blu-ray. Copy protection schemes will never stop being designed or introduced.

 

Not sure about the personal attack, people names who got MQA to recant their claims etc. The evidence of the lies stated by MQA supporter is what has been refuted and proven wrong - lossless, special glove treatment of every album, signed off by the artists, deblurring when in fact it causes blur, the claimed ADC errors causing blur, when in fact it does not actually exist, the aliasing which is quite simply extremely bad audio engineering - all this purported to be High Resolution and a A New World Order.

 

Self proclaimed experts - again, not sure what you are referring to here. Either dispute the evidence presented, or accept it.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Shrug. - the only point I have really disputed is  that the current  MQA implementation is as good as it can be. It can be better. 

 

You are are simply being disingenuous with the rest of your comment however. 

 

 

[firedog]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This doesn't make since, because the labels are also giving hirez music to Qobuz.  

 

If MQA was some nefarious record label conspiracy then they would not let out 24/96 files of thousands of albums.

No, it just means they are not yet in a market position with MQA to make that work. If, as you keep claiming, MQA is adopted by some of the significant streaming services (Tidal and Qobuz are minor players), then we will see what they really intend.
I also find it interesting as MQA Ltd., themselves have said that their goal is to be the default streaming format (other than free mp3 streams), and to accrue profits from the MQA licensed HW that will then necessarily follow.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, it just means they are not yet in a market position with MQA to make that work. If, as you keep claiming, MQA is adopted by some of the significant streaming services (Tidal and Qobuz are minor players), then we will see what they really intend.
I also find it interesting as MQA Ltd., themselves have said that their goal is to be the default streaming format (other than free mp3 streams), and to accrue profits from the MQA licensed HW that will then necessarily follow.

 

I doubt MQA will dominate enough streaming services to impact customer choice.  There are just too many out there (significant competition) and too many other options like multiple download sites, etc.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

You are are simply being disingenuous with the rest of your comment however

Hi,

No, everything i stated is fact. It is in this thread in the many pages.

 

MQA design is in the opposite direction to what high resolution audio is about.

 

If you dispute the facts - then make the claim here on the forum, stating which fact you specifically disagree with for a response.

 

If you dislike the personal attacks, then repeat who said what to whom, here on the forum so the necessary parties can respond.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

But this is where I think MQA is clever.  It also serves to create a premium tier of streaming service which enables the label to make more money and share that with artists who are underpaid under streaming.  It also serves to align interests to create a bigger market for hirez.

 

It's a clever extension of each stakeholder saying "what's in it for me" with the music ecosystem.

 

The problem with free things like FLAC is there is no money in it for most people.  That makes it hard to gain wider adoption.

 

 

Again, you seem to live in an alternate universe with a different set of rules than the one the rest of us live in:
Premium tier - can be done with FLAC. Exactly as you are proposing with MQA. How is MQA actually more "tierable" than flac? I think Qobuz has "tiered" their offerings without MQA.

The record companies can compensate artists more fairly even without MQA. What is preventing them from doing so? There is no technical or legal barrier. The only barrier is the greed barrier of the labels.

Again, the unstated assumption in what you are saying is that the real reason for MQA is to prevent us from access to the unadulterated masters/hi-res versions. Only in that scenario does what you are claiming make sense. And that is btw, exactly what Robert Hartley was referring to when he said the purpose of MQA was to keep the "crown jewels" - aka actual hi-res versions/masters - away from the public.

[Paul R]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

"The discussion" is not just here; it's also in the rest of the audiophile press/universe. Other than here, little "real discussion" has taken place. There are a few examples, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. The more general phenomenon has been one of articles just echoing MQA marketing speak and taking whatever MQA Ltd., or it's representatives say at face value. In fact, even when politely challenging "non-factual" assertations in many of these articles, the response is just further regurgitation of what "Bob" says, with little or no critical analysis.

 

I can see that.

 

But what little discussion remains here only happens in between rants, and intensive “shout downs.”  And from a broader viewpoint, the points that the most strident here engage upon may simply be wrong. MQA taking over the world and such rat droppings. 

 

The facts were, in general, presented very reasonably, if not welcomed with open arms by a MQA. The hateful personal attacks simply detract from them. 

 

[firedog]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

The facts were, in general, presented very reasonably, if not welcomed with open arms by a MQA.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

[Paul R]

Just now, firedog said:

Not sure what you are referring to here.

Archimago and the you tube source that got him started. @Jud ,s summary, Chris’ presentation, a lot of posts from you, Miska, and others. 

[MikeyFresh]

31 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

This doesn't make since, because the labels are also giving hirez music to Qobuz.

 

It makes perfect sense, no one knows with the streaming services how long any given version of an album will be made available, there are no implicit guarantees of such. If the labels tomorrow wanted to pull the versions Qobuz currently has and replace them all with Master Quality Adulterated, Qobuz would have no recourse and neither would a subscriber.

 

Further, haven't there been reports (not just 2L titles) of things cropping up in Qobuz that Roon sees as MQA? Whether or not that is just some sort of error in the way Roon sees these titles, or an error in what the label actually sent Qobuz, or maybe worse, maybe it's "oops, we sent you MQA without telling you" just to see how far that could go with no one really noticing? Again, none of this is far fetched given what we already know about the greedy anti-artist/anti-consumer hungry huge profit driven record labels.

 

31 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

If MQA was some nefarious record label conspiracy then they would not let out 24/96 files of thousands of albums.

 

Bad chronology there Lee, that cat was already well out of the bag, the labels released 24/96 and 24/192 albums as downloads to the likes of HDtracks many years ago, long before MQA was a commercial offering.

 

So it's not a case of the labels now deciding not to "let out" thousands of albums in 24/96, they've already done that a long time ago. The nefarious record label conspiracy that we all have ample reason to fear is one in which those existing hi-rez titles are simply withdrawn, and the only versions available moving forward are mandated by the labels to be Master Quality Adulterated lossy compressed crap.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Shrug. - the only point I have really disputed is  that the current  MQA implementation is as good as it can be. It can be better.

WHAT LEADS YOU TO THIS BELIEF? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION?

 

WHY WILL YOU NOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS?

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I felt cheated by the course of events at Chris’s seminar in Denver last October—when he was derailed by the bad behavior of the MQA contingent, a group that showed up—it seemed to me and to plenty of others—expressly to shut him down.

 

The title of his session was MQA: The Truth Lies Somewhere in the Middle. Does this mean, Chris, that—had you been allowed to continue unimpeded—you would have described a middle ground? That you would have enumerated positive aspects of MQA in addition to the apparent negative ones? If so, that could have set the stage for a more productive discussion between those with differing viewpoints regarding the technology, both that afternoon in Denver and, more importantly, beyond—on forums like this one.

 

It seems that to me  that since the RMAF debacle, Chris has made less of an effort to give even the appearance of neutrality—that he no longer sees his role, as the boss of Audiophile Style, to broker a fair discussion. If the assault he endured at RMAF was the source of this change, I guess I can understand. But it is too bad. We were all cheated out of a chance to experience more light and less heat.

 

Andrew Quint

 

Hi Andrew - Happy to hear you felt cheated because of the behavior of the MQA contingent at RMAF. That's honestly how I assume everyone felt, yet we have some who believe otherwise. I think you must the totality of the circumstances at this point in 2019 with respect to your desire for a middle ground presentation, given what we know now. 

 

If you were MQA and you had nothing to hide, would you have acted that way during my presentation?

 

If you were MQA and were presented with facts months prior to my presentation, would you elect to ignore them and instead attack the messenger at RMAF?

 

If you were MQA and had an opportunity to shut up all the critics by simply supplying valid and verifiable information for publication on the front page of this website, would you? 

 

I offered to make an "MQA Hero" out of anyone who could support MQA's claims. Granted my term "MQA Hero" was strange, but it's what came out of my mouth at the time. The point remains, I will happily publish verifiable objective data that counters the work of @mansr @Miska @Archimago and counters the opinions of all the engineers in the industry who I've talked to. Talk about click bait! I'd love to publish it. The facts is, there's no there there. 

 

If you remember, starting a couple years back, I fought the fight you wish we could discuss today. I pushed very hard for neutrality and asked all the MQA detractors to back up their claims with objective data. I was called a shill by many. However, I kept my eyes and ears open and continued to conduct my own research. 

 

Prior to my presentation I searched high and low for evidence of the middle ground. When I found cool stuff about MQA I made a point to discuss it in my presentation. Going back to old tapes and pulling sonic magic out of old recordings is truly commendable. However, as time went on and I learned quite a bit more, my balanced approach was toppled by the weight of the evidence. There comes a time when one can make a decision. This time was shortly after my presentation for me. I had all the research. The behavior of the MQA contingent was the nail in the coffin because it signified to me that this company truly thinks it has something to hide. 

 

Note: My phone conversations with Bob S, which I recorded, were also full of signals to me that this company not only had something to hide but was also willing to do whatever it takes to make MQA a success. I don't want to get into the details here, but I will say sketchy tactics were used to attempt to persuade me to not only change my mind but also change the mind of this community.

 

If I were to keep a balanced approach to this day, it would be a disservice to the HiFi community. As an analogy, given all the climate change objective data, it just doesn't make sense for journalists to give equal (or any) time to people who suggest it isn't happening because the weather outside is cold today. I feel the same way about MQA. I held the flag of balanced debate for a couple years. Now the evidence against MQA is simply too heavy. 

 

I suggest you have a look at @Jud's easy to read post with some serious issues about MQA. Perhaps @John_Atkinson would also like to read it, as I see he liked your post to me. I know you and john don't need to defend MQA, but I'd love to read your balanced thoughts about what Jud says in the post below. 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I doubt MQA will dominate enough streaming services to impact customer choice.

I can't stream straight up PCM of the 2L catalog or the Radka Toneff album. My choice is starting to be limited now.

 

Sure this is an edge case, small-time label, but I'll stop using it as an example as soon as you stop using the Peter McGrath files as your only "it sounds so good" ammunition. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

19 minutes ago, firedog said:

Again, the unstated assumption in what you are saying is that the real reason for MQA is to prevent us from access to the unadulterated masters/hi-res versions. Only in that scenario does what you are claiming make sense. And that is btw, exactly what Robert Hartley was referring to when he said the purpose of MQA was to keep the "crown jewels" - aka actual hi-res versions/masters - away from the public.

 

It seems like that is a well and often stated assumption, and one that is probably true, no? 

 

The trade off was that we would get more and better quality music from the labels. While MQA cannot exactly control that, it is certainly one promise that has not come true. Unless you count Tidal masters I suppose. 

 

FLAC is difficult to impose DRM upon, so it probably cannot be used to protect the “Crown Jewels” - But you already knew that of course?

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

But this is where I think MQA is clever.  It also serves to create a premium tier of streaming service which enables the label to make more money and share that with artists who are underpaid under streaming.  It also serves to align interests to create a bigger market for hirez.

 

 

Yet another regurgitation. There is already a premium tier on Qobuz, and with it no MQA is necessary. However that premium tier will not result in any other stakeholder such as an artist making more money, other than the record labels themselves. This fantasy of the greedy labels run by accountants and lawyers actually sharing the wealth has no prior history of existence in many decades of commercial music production. Quite the opposite actually, what new information are we missing with regard to your new "ecosystem" suddenly becoming far more fair and equitable to the various stakeholders?

[manisandher]

48 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Thanks!

 

Signal Max  : 2.66631e+06 (-9.96 dB)

 

 

Pretty high level. Not sure how accurate the diff is...

 

 

 

Here's what I'm getting:

 

Sample B:

 

Sample C

 

Difference:

 

Looks reasonable to me. Depending on the content, MQA seems to be doing a lot (probably during cymbal strikes, etc.) or very little.

 

If these two files nulled perfectly, MQA would be doing nothing. And we know it's not doing nothing.

 

Mani.

[Samuel T Cogley]

25 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I doubt MQA will dominate enough streaming services to impact customer choice.

 

Wait, what?  You're now hedging on your predictions of MQA's success? 😮

[Miska]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Difference:

 

Looks reasonable to me. Depending on the content, MQA seems to be doing a lot (probably during cymbal strikes, etc.) or very little.

 

If these two files nulled perfectly, MQA would be doing nothing. And we know it's not doing nothing.

 

Switch that lower graph into dB level scale like I did and you see better. Linear level scale is not very good for this purpose. But since you can see anything in first place on linear scale it means the difference is quite massive.

 

I think that is very bad for a content delivery format, it is delivering notably modified version of the original. And the modification is not just in the highest frequencies where you have the filter ringing, but it is throughout from the lowest frequencies.

 

Another question is why we would want to buy content that is mangled with such pre-processing, instead of getting the original and processing it by ourself the way we see fit? They could market upsampler device that does the same thing and I have absolutely no problem with such, because we would still have the original content. But I have problem of someone trying to irrevocably force their choice of mangling on me and forcing me to pay for both the mangled content and ability to decode the mangling without even further compromised quality.

 

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

FLAC is difficult to impose DRM upon, so it probably cannot be used to protect the “Crown Jewels” - But you already knew that of course? 

Hi,

I still do not get this "Crown Jewels" aspect. It is all in the record companies head.

 

When i purchase a CD i don't think "ha ha ha ha ha, i got the master of the music, and there is nothing the record label can do", whilst rubbing my hands together, grinning and squinting my eyes in gleeful admiration of my success.

 

What actually happens is i play the CD, listen to the music, and crown jewels don't come into it. I get to listen, and the record label gets their money from the purchase.

 

What MQA is offering is, as presented to the record companies, high resolution without giving away the master. They love it. But if listening to MQA is no different from the master, and is what the artist heard in the studio etc., then by obvious logic, we have the master. But in the record companies heads, they have pulled one over us - we haven't got the master. It is this twisted logic that causes them to back MQA.

 

MQA appeals to the record companies desires, which is greed and control of the music. Look at the patents owned by MQA Ltd and Meridian Audio - they can be used for full DRM control. It is possible for one file can only be played on one device. You want to play the same song on another device - you need to purchase again.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[crenca]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hi Andrew - Happy to hear you felt cheated because of the behavior of the MQA contingent at RMAF. That's honestly how I assume everyone felt, yet we have some who believe otherwise. I think you must the totality of the circumstances at this point in 2019 with respect to your desire for a middle ground presentation, given what we know now. 

 

If you were MQA and you had nothing to hide, would you have acted that way during my presentation?

 

If you were MQA and were presented with facts months prior to my presentation, would you elect to ignore them and instead attack the messenger at RMAF?

 

If you were MQA and had an opportunity to shut up all the critics by simply supplying valid and verifiable information for publication on the front page of this website, would you? 

 

I offered to make an "MQA Hero" out of anyone who could support MQA's claims. Granted my term "MQA Hero" was strange, but it's what came out of my mouth at the time. The point remains, I will happily publish verifiable objective data that counters the work of @mansr @Miska @Archimago and counters the opinions of all the engineers in the industry who I've talked to. Talk about click bait! I'd love to publish it. The facts is, there's no there there. 

 

If you remember, starting a couple years back, I fought the fight you wish we could discuss today. I pushed very hard for neutrality and asked all the MQA detractors to back up their claims with objective data. I was called a shill by many. However, I kept my eyes and ears open and continued to conduct my own research. 

 

Prior to my presentation I searched high and low for evidence of the middle ground. When I found cool stuff about MQA I made a point to discuss it in my presentation. Going back to old tapes and pulling sonic magic out of old recordings is truly commendable. However, as time went on and I learned quite a bit more, my balanced approach was toppled by the weight of the evidence. There comes a time when one can make a decision. This time was shortly after my presentation for me. I had all the research. The behavior of the MQA contingent was the nail in the coffin because it signified to me that this company truly thinks it has something to hide. 

 

Note: My phone conversations with Bob S, which I recorded, were also full of signals to me that this company not only had something to hide but was also willing to do whatever it takes to make MQA a success. I don't want to get into the details here, but I will say sketchy tactics were used to attempt to persuade me to not only change my mind but also change the mind of this community.

 

If I were to keep a balanced approach to this day, it would be a disservice to the HiFi community. As an analogy, given all the climate change objective data, it just doesn't make sense for journalists to give equal (or any) time to people who suggest it isn't happening because the weather outside is cold today. I feel the same way about MQA. I held the flag of balanced debate for a couple years. Now the evidence against MQA is simply too heavy. 

 

I suggest you have a look at @Jud's easy to read post with some serious issues about MQA. Perhaps @John_Atkinson would also like to read it, as I see he liked your post to me. I know you and john don't need to defend MQA, but I'd love to read your balanced thoughts about what Jud says in the post below. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well stated.  The truth is not democratic.  Depending on the context, it can be downright anti-democratic.  The Old Guard like @ARQuintand @John_Atkinson believe that the truth of consumer electronics and digital/computational software (such as MQA) is somehow related to or can be found in a subjective debate.   The neat thing about the truth is that it simply is.  When it is in the middle, it's in the middle and when its not, it's not.  In the case of MQA, the truth is not anywhere near the Old Guard who bleat the marketing speak of MQA like the herd of industry insider sheep they are.

 

Interesting choice of words @ARQuint, you "feel cheated".  You don't have the character and skills (or if you do, you don't use them) to discern the truth of MQA, so you look to the herd and try to listen to what they are bleating and go with that.  You look to folks like @Paul Rwho literally just bleat out stream-of-consciousness-speculations that add up to exactly nothing, to support your notion that the truth is democratic.  It all is quite silly, and supposed authorities like @John_Atkinsonsupport you in your silliness.  There is only one word for all this:  Pathetic

 

Edit: It's time for a visual reminder as to where men such as JA really stand:

 

 

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

One thing I've learned about the Old Guard: they have remarkably thin skin.

[Mayfair]

Proverbs 26:4

[Miska]

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

FLAC is difficult to impose DRM upon, so it probably cannot be used to protect the “Crown Jewels” - But you already knew that of course?

 

MQA files and not standard FLAC, they are encoded data put through FLAC codec. But there is second layer of compression and DRM underneath. When you decode the FLAC you are still left with partially encoded, quality compromised data that needs second layer of decoding that is reserved to the tightly controlled licensed products. This also has effect that the outer layer of FLAC compression has worse compression ratio than it would have with normal content, because the encrypted part looks like noise and is not compressible.

 

A bit like HDCD, but worse.

 

You could as well put this message (or a book) through standard FLAC compression and decompress it afterwards and it would come out the same. But it doesn't mean that this text would be actual audio.