MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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

When one is used to "Letters to the Editor" being hand selected and published once per month, it's easy to get that way.

[firedog]

21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

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. 

 

And why can't they just sell us the high quality music anyway? They are charging a huge premium for hi-res, so clearly they are making money on it.

[Sonicularity]

27 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

 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. 

 

 

 

MQA taking over the world is the only real concern when you boil everything down. When would be a more appropriate time to take a stance in opposition to MQA's adaptation?

[Miska]

9 minutes ago, Shadders said:

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.

 

That's the logic already. When there's MQA2, you need to purchase it again to hear what the artist really-really meant and heard. Without actually hearing the master which is what the artist really-really-really meant and heard instead of MQA's impression of that.

 

In any case, for 99% of my content, I'm going to buy it only once. If I have RedBook, I'm hardly going to buy HiRes. And if I have HiRes, I'm not going to buy another variant of same content as HiHiRes. I'm only going to buy content I don't already have. And I've learned my hard lesson, I'm only going to buy content in format that doesn't require proprietary black boxes to play. That's where their thinking and plans go wrong.

 

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

When one is used to "Letters to the Editor" being hand selected and published once per month, it's easy to get that way.

 

True.  I have more respect for men like Bob Stuart than I do for John Atkinson.  Bob might want to pick my pocket, but at least he gets something for it - and he has ambition:  he wants to pick everyone's pocket in this silly industry.  Folks like Quint and Atkinson - I think they actually  believe what they are selling...they appear to believe their own bull$&*t.

 

edit:  I do have some respect for JA as he appears to be a proper English gentlemen.  A proper English gentlemen believing his own bull$&*t at least has the advantage being, what's the word, polite... 😋

[Shadders]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

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

 

Is JA the one with "Foot in Mouth".......

 

(This was a joke, nothing else inferred)

[Dr Tone]

11 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

MQA taking over the world is the only real concern when you boil everything down. When would be a more appropriate time to take a stance in opposition to MQA's adaptation?

 

In most MQA fan's opinion, right after it's too late.

[Paul R]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh goody- here is a great example of a set of nasty personal attacks for you @Shadders!!  

 

Just put any set of generic names in there and you could take this most un-clever posting right out of a PR smear playbook for MQA!

 

If the poster really wanted to be clever, he could probably copy some witticism from Shakespeare. The Taming of the Shrew perhaps? 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

30 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

MQA taking over the world is the only real concern when you boil everything down. When would be a more appropriate time to take a stance in opposition to MQA's adaptation?

 

At the checkout? 

 

I agree it is the only real concern, but I do not consider it a very big one. Just vote with your credit card. 

 

Qobuz instead of a Tidal, for example. 

[Paul R]

31 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

And why can't they just sell us the high quality music anyway? They are charging a huge premium for hi-res, so clearly they are making money on it.

 

That my friend, is the best question asked here. Audiophiles are the only ones who would buy them anyway. 

 

-Paul

[FredericV]

29 minutes ago, Shadders said:

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.

It would be interesting to see what kind of marketing they did towards the labels. When MQA came out, I immediately knew A standed for approximation. Probably the right to listen to an approximation, while selling it as "master quality" was a very attractive to the labels. To sell lossy to audiophiles they invented their time domain / deblur claim.

Approximation and thus lossy was even confirmed by the man himself:

 

 

 

It was the middle statement in (c) which made me research this claim:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38608-truncating-mqa-files-to-16-bits-and-the-blue-light-still-shines/

 

[Shadders]

11 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Oh goody- here is a great example of a set of nasty personal attacks for you @Shadders!!  

 

Just put any set of generic names in there and you could take this most un-clever posting right out of a PR smear playbook for MQA!

 

If the poster really wanted to be clever, he could probably copy some witticism from Shakespeare. The Taming of the Shrew perhaps? 

 

 

 

Hi,

OK - take it up with the person - not all people who disagree with MQA respond as per your disagreement. If what is said is in error - then do challenge them.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[ipeverywhere]

26 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

MQA taking over the world is the only real concern when you boil everything down. When would be a more appropriate time to take a stance in opposition to MQA's adaptation?

 

I'll reckon that 90% of music streamers (those individuals who stream music) have no idea what they are streaming. If you asked those who switched from Pandora and Spotify to Apple Music if they knew or cared that they also switched codecs they would say "no". FLAC to MQA to MQA2 to DSD or whatever the streaming space is going to do next will be a blip on any streaming services subscription numbers because there just are not that many people paying attention. The number of people following a codec from service to service are just too few to matter*.

 

When people buy 0 MQA files maybe they will get the hint. But, no one is, should be, expecting an increase on the sale of music files. It's all about streaming revenue and maximizing streaming revenue. If MQA thinks their primary revenue stream is from selling copies of "masters" they are going to fail so I cannot imagine this is their growth strategy. And, I'll make another guess into the future...  The number of people who don't know what a codec is _and_ buy files will drop to 0 as those individuals will all shift to streaming exclusively. The number of people who do know what a codec is/file format is and buy music will go flat or maybe even rise <shrug>. Those people will (should) put formats like MQA out of the business of "selling files". But, again, no one is focused on selling files. It's a dead future.

 

The future of MQA is streaming and there are just not enough people who have any idea what that means to voice an opinion on it. (my opinion of course) 

 

*The only exception here is when you cannot stream over cellular because the file size is too big or you need a massive data plan. Then  masses will get vocal. This is why all streaming services default their mobile apps to a lower bitrate normal/standard. Listeners will hear music skip, jump, and stutter, well before they notice a higher resolution stream. 

 

 

 

 

[mansr]

Here's something I started writing while drunk a while back. I'll let you lot finish it:

 

The story of MQA begins with Bob waking up one morning and thinking, "how can I make some money?" His hardware business, Meridian, was losing money, and his earlier foray into digital formats, MLP, had had limited success. Clearly, a new approach was needed. The labels control the music, Bob thought, and thus the flow of money. Something to tap into, but how?

What do the labels desire the most? "Control," Bob said to himself, "and that's what I'll sell them." In another word, DRM. An end to the scourge of piracy. Of course, the music-buying public had long ago rejected DRM, so something clever was needed.

DRM is based on cryptography, and besides secrecy, cryptography can also be used to verify authenticity. Discerning music lovers care about provenance, and what better assurance could there be than an authentic signature from the label itself? Bob had found his Trojan horse.

With a plan to conquer both the music labels and the consumers, one market player still remained unexploited, the hardware vendors. How could they be persuaded to contribute to Bob's fortune? The answer, he decided, was to insist that his new format be decoded only within the DAC. This would also be a further incentive for the labels in that DRM coverage would extend all the way to the analogue stage, elegantly preventing copying without losses, just like in the good old days.

...

[Paul R]

1 hour 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.

 

Just a thought - so what are they going to do about the truly enormous library of non DRM hi-res music out there that already exists? Those lirbaries are not going to just disappear from the disks of hobbyists all over the world. Not to mention the even more enormous number of needle drops out there. 

 

-Paul

 

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

Just a thought - so what are they going to do about the truly enormous library of non DRM hi-res music out there that already exists? Those lirbaries are not going to just disappear from the disks of hobbyists all over the world. Not to mention the even more enormous number of needle drops out there. 

 

-Paul

 

Hi,

You may not be aware, but there are bands releasing new material all the time. If it is an MQA only future, then the future of music could be quite restrictive.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

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

 

It is an audiophile/music lover thing I suppose. It all comes back to the age old question of, is there better sound than CD? 

 

If the answer is yes, then what is the best possible sound?  The answer is the actual master, be it tape or digital, or even if the only version left if on vinyl. 

 

The audiophile take? I want a copy of that master. It's the best that can possible be, and will be so no matter how I improve my system in the future. 

 

Audiophile / Music Lover vs. Labels.   MQA to the rescue, in theory. Deliver the best sound, same as the master tape, without giving out the master tape. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

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.

 

It might surprise you, but some audiophiles  music lovers do exactly that - squinty gaze and all. 

 

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

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.

 

Sure, and that is the part of MQA I really detest, and have for years. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Tintinabulum]

16 minutes ago, Shadders said:

If it is an MQA only future

Bands are typically rebellious. Easy enough to facilitate (non MQA) downloads to fans, printing CDs is easy, not rocket science. Kate Bush sells her own stuff.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Audiophile / Music Lover vs. Labels.   MQA to the rescue, in theory. Deliver the best sound, same as the master tape, without giving out the master tape. 

There's a word for that: DRM.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

OK - take it up with the person - not all people who disagree with MQA respond as per your disagreement. If what is said is in error - then do challenge them.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

 Why bother? There is an exclusive little clique here that feels they can say anything without repercussion. Also, I like Proverbs 26:4 . 

 

None of that nonsense I referenced to you to was addressing actual issues or facts, it was merely ill considered sniping.  Challenging it is a fool's errand. However, you had indicated you had not seen any personal attacks or hateful speech - so now you have. 

 

-Paul

 

 

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

At the checkout? 

 

I agree it is the only real concern, but I do not consider it a very big one. Just vote with your credit card. 

 

Qobuz instead of a Tidal, for example. 

 

I subscribe to Qobuz and Tidal.  I choose not to stream MQA, but I have had a Tidal lossless subscription long before MQA was made available to stream.  I do not have a DAC capable of playing fully unfolded MQA files, and I have been using Qobuz for any music that is duplicated in Tidal, though Tidal has a lot of music that I enjoy that is not available at this time through Qobuz. 

 

If I suspected that my Tidal subscription was significantly helping to support MQA, I would reluctantly drop it. 

[Paul R]

39 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

You may not be aware, but there are bands releasing new material all the time. If it is an MQA only future, then the future of music could be quite restrictive.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 I just spent 20 years in Austin, the live music capital of the world. I am pretty sure there are more releases from bands there than much of any other place in the country. Some good, some bad, a few excellent. 

 

Just how do you expect MQA to take over these cowboys, punkers, metal, showtunes, and classical artists? Ain't gonna happen... 

 

-Paul 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 I just spent 20 years in Austin, the live music capital of the world. I am pretty sure there are more releases from bands there than much of any other place in the country. Some good, some bad, a few excellent. 

 

Just how do you expect MQA to take over these cowboys, punkers, metal, showtunes, and classical artists? Ain't gonna happen... 

 

-Paul 

 

256 Kbps AAC took them over. 

[botrytis]

This discussion reminds me of one I had with a friend who was an anti-vaxxer. He did not vaccinate his children because he said they cause autism and all types of nasty things. I showed him a multitude of scientific papers showing that he was wrong. People would rather be stupidly right than admit they are wrong. This has been stated before, in this thread, and it is the truth.

 

As far as MQA, I have heard the Peter McGrath MQA samples and the spiel beforehand. I closed my ears to the spiel and listened to just the music. There was a difference and it wasn't pleasant. This is the problem with MQA listening sessions and it is classic psychology. Tell them what they will hear, Explain in flowery language and your brain will subconsciously fill in the rest. This happens ALL THE TIME, listening to loudspeaker presentations, etc. They also will play the music twice because our brain does have a little small tape recorder in it, that will save what we heard then will add more on top of that tape. Kind of like layering. This is how they get audiophiles to buy. 

 

I remember one great audio demonstration I went to. It was simple and straight forward. It was the CEO and head designer of HRS Systems. What he did was to play one CD in a player (he did it twice - but both times) let us listen. Then he just moved the CD player to one of his racks and just played it again. He did the explanation AFTER the demo. He didn't use influence or anything else. The difference was there. THAT WAS A DEMO.

 

Of course, the problem with music is, what master are you using. This is one of the issues I have with MQA, you cannot determine which master they are using. They just say, 'Trust us.'. Sorry, after the way the music industry has reacted over the last 50-60 years, their record does not exude confidence in me.

 

That said, this argument will go round and round, ad infinitum. This is because the Lee Scoggins of the world can't admit they are wrong or look at the data that is out there for anyone to see and reproduce, if they equipment to do so, reproduce what has been reported here.

 

I will close with a David Hannam quote, 'There is a sucker born every minute.' (Look it up - it wasn't PT Barnum).

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

256 Kbps AAC took them over. 

 

Odd is it not, how some who would otherwise lament the place of lossy encoding in the market - which is about 99% or so of it - on the other side of their mouth say "don't worry about MQA, it ain't ever going to happen"....