MQA is Vaporware

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

To be fair to Paul, he also said that we should stop worrying about MQA because there will always be alternative sources of music available such as street musicians hawking their self-produced CDs out of their guitar cases.  

A lot of the bands i like are in general, not mainstream - so i do hope they don't get conned by the MQA hype.

 

I visited Oxford Street a few weeks ago - the high volume of the street artists PA system was ear piercingly painful. I am surprised Westminster council allowed such a high volume.

 

😀 Anyway, just had the Brexit vote - looks like we are going for a No Deal. I don't think we need Europe anyway - the French keep on burning our lamb exports to them.😀

[KeenObserver]

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

I don't care what anyone says about you Keen, you have potential 😋

 

No kidding?  What are they saying about me?  I have feelings, you know.

[KeenObserver]

I'm still going through all these posts.  I find it helps my perspective if every time someone mentions the MQA "ecosystem",  I substitute "septic system".

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't see the relevance to this discussion. 

 

What am I doing, saying, or not doing that is causing confusion? Let me try this way, and if you disagree, please explain why a little more. Concrete between the ears today, apparently. 

 

• MQA wants to be universal.
• They will never convince the local musicians to join MQA unless there is a strong financial incentive to do so. 
• They number in the thousands, and have billions of dollars of impact on the local community. 
• How is MQA ever going to "take over" the world with those kinds of people out there?   

That's just one group. You have audiophiles on a different hand, and while we represent a much smaller market segment and economic impact, we certainly do carry some clout. People targeting the audiophile market will build equipment that does not contain MQA is audiophiles will buy it.  The same is actually true in the pro market. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

One, they don’t care about needle drops.

The “truly enormous” library isn’t - only a small number of audiophiles even own any or know that it exists. A hires download that sells a few thousand copies is a top seller. 

They will continue doing what they’ve been doing with old music since the 80’s: bring out new formats and new remixes, box sets,  and remasters and get the public to buy it again.
There’s still an enormous amount of music that hasn’t been released in hires they can release. Notice just in the last few months: Lennon, Beatles, Hendrix, Buffalo Springfield. AFAIK, all sold well and many  also sold in expensive deluxe or boxed editions. 

 

Oops, my bad. I was including Redbook resolution in the "hi-res" comment, confusingly and erroneously. I was thinking of the premium tiers on the streaming services, and included the rather extensive CD libraries most people have. It isn't uncommon for even non-audiophiles to have a couple hundred CDs. 

 

Audiophiles, as usual, tend to go a bit overboard with our libraries, having thousands of CD's, usually ripped to spinning disk storage, thank goodness. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

What am I doing, saying, or not doing that is causing confusion? Let me try this way, and if you disagree, please explain why a little more. Concrete between the ears today, apparently. 

 

• MQA wants to be universal.
• They will never convince the local musicians to join MQA unless there is a strong financial incentive to do so. 
• They number in the thousands, and have billions of dollars of impact on the local community. 
• How is MQA ever going to "take over" the world with those kinds of people out there?   

That's just one group. You have audiophiles on a different hand, and while we represent a much smaller market segment and economic impact, we certainly do carry some clout. People targeting the audiophile market will build equipment that does not contain MQA is audiophiles will buy it.  The same is actually true in the pro market.

 

I'm not totally sure, but I think "take over the world" was your characterization.  Unsigned and indie artists aren't relevant.  During SACDs heyday, how many unsigned artists do you think were releasing on SACD?  And I seriously doubt anyone was pinning their hopes on unsigned artists to transform SACD into a market juggernaut. 

 

For me, MQA is about what's happening with the major labels back catalogs.  I really could care less about contemporary artists.

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

What am I doing, saying, or not doing that is causing confusion? Let me try this way, and if you disagree, please explain why a little more. Concrete between the ears today, apparently. 

 

• MQA wants to be universal.
• They will never convince the local musicians to join MQA unless there is a strong financial incentive to do so. 
• They number in the thousands, and have billions of dollars of impact on the local community. 
• How is MQA ever going to "take over" the world with those kinds of people out there?   

That's just one group. You have audiophiles on a different hand, and while we represent a much smaller market segment and economic impact, we certainly do carry some clout. People targeting the audiophile market will build equipment that does not contain MQA is audiophiles will buy it.  The same is actually true in the pro market. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

 

 

 

Local musicians are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

If you look at the hard drives of the folks here on this site, you will find that the vast majority of the music they own comes from a label owned by one of the Big Three.

 

All MQA needs to do is lock down the big three and everyone else will come in line.

 

Sure there will still be sources of non-MQA music out there but it will be music that few people are interested in.

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm not totally sure, but I think "take over the world" was your characterization.  Unsigned and indie artists aren't relevant.  During SACDs heyday, how many unsigned artists do you think were releasing on SACD?  And I seriously doubt anyone was pinning their hopes on unsigned artists to transform SACD into a market juggernaut. 

 

For me, MQA is about what's happening with the major labels back catalogs.  I really could care less about contemporary artists.

 

I can see that.

 

On the other hand, everyone has some of the back catalog, at least on CD resolution. Those files are not going to stop working even if MQA takes over all music distribution in the world.  If it becomes available for sale only in MQA, who is going to buy it? And Why?  

 

If they drop the price and release a lot of the unreleased music, assuming they can find the tapes of course, then- maybe...

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Local musicians are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

If you look at the hard drives of the folks here on this site, you will find that the vast majority of the music they own comes from a label owned by one of the Big Three.

 

All MQA needs to do is lock down the big three and everyone else will come in line.

 

Sure there will still be sources of non-MQA music out there but it will be music that few people are interested in.

 

Oh, perhaps so.

 

My library is not dominated nearly so much by the big three, as I have thousands of hours of recordings I made, and a lot of those are local groups. Also I have well over a thousand needle drops, some of which desperately need to be redone. Only a few thousand albums from the big three. 

 

My viewpoint may be a little biased there. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Paul R said:

 

I can see that.

 

On the other hand, everyone has some of the back catalog, at least on CD resolution. Those files are not going to stop working even if MQA takes over all music distribution in the world.  If it becomes available for sale only in MQA, who is going to buy it? And Why?  

 

If they drop the price and release a lot of the unreleased music, assuming they can find the tapes of course, then- maybe...

 

Tapes?  If they were mastered before around 1985, maybe.  HDTracks has many titles where the 80s and 90s era 16/44 masters are captured to analog tape (for preservation and future readability) then that tape is in turn captured digitally again at a higher sample rate.  Those output files, even in "naked" PCM format are not worth the disc space that they consume.  And lots of those files have been made into MQA.  "Master Quality" is a lie.

[new_media]

I've sort of lost track of this discussion.

 

We shouldn't be critical of MQA because they probably won't have much market penetration?

[Samuel T Cogley]

39 minutes ago, new_media said:

I've sort of lost track of this discussion.

 

We shouldn't be critical of MQA because they probably won't have much market penetration?

 

That seems to be Scoggins' latest angle.  "Nothing to see here, you guys need to relax" 🙂

[tmtomh]

6 hours 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.

 

I agree that the labels still are letting out 24/96 of albums - and if you are correct that it's "thousands," even better.

 

But as usual, @Lee Scoggins, you appear unwilling or unable to acknowledge or understand the consequences of your statement for your own argument.

 

You have argued strenuously that MQA is necessary/beneficial because it will spur more high-res releases, owing to the "giving away the Crown Jewels" problem the labels have, and/or to the "authentication" verification afforded by MQA's blue light

 

But if the labels are in fact continuing to release thousands of albums' worth of conventional high-res PCM files, then your argument is proven to be incorrect.

 

Given that, all that remains of MQA is its claim to sonic superiority based on its filtering. Remember, MQA cannot claim any sonic benefit based on resolution because even if you ignore the fact that MQA is approximately 17-bit and is lossy above 24kHz, it's competing with 24/96 (and at times 24/192) PCM files.

 

So all that's left is the Meridian's slow-slope, apodizing fliers, which prioritize phase linearity over frequency linearity (and produce high aliasing distortion in the process). I certainly have no problem with the fact that you (based on your prior comments) prefer MQA's filtering. But that subjective listening impression is in no way, shape, or form an argument in favor of MQA as a format, as preferred sonic engineering solution, as a technological ecosystem, or as a business model.

[christopher3393]

6 hours 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:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, you imply that YOU have the character and skill to discern the truth about MQA. Would you be willing to elaborate on the virtues you exercise, particularly in posts like this, and the requisite skills that you have, that both Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Quint so sorely lack in your most humble opinion? 

 

Do you claim the gift of discernment?   https://spiritualgiftstest.com/spiritual-gift-discernment/

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

...But that subjective listening impression is in no way, shape, or form an argument in favor of MQA as a format, as preferred sonic engineering solution, as a technological ecosystem, or as a business model.

 

Yet, we built this city on rock and roll Audiophiledom is built upon not just the subjective preference, but the radical subjective sells model.  Your not playing along tmtomh and your not being a team player and your not being fair...  

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

For me, MQA is about what's happening with the major labels back catalogs.  I really could care less about contemporary artists.

 

Why would you worry about the back catalogs?  Pretty much everything has been published in any format you care to have and if it’s reissued in MQA because it “sounds better”, you know that’s not true and aren’t going to buy it anyway. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, daverich4 said:

 

Why would you worry about the back catalogs?  Pretty much everything has been published in any format you care to have and if it’s reissued in MQA because it “sounds better”, you know that’s not true and aren’t going to buy it anyway. 

 

"worry" isn't a word I would use.  I always seek out back catalog material in resolutions higher than Redbook because that's where there is a slightly better chance there will be minimal peak limiting.  A recent example for me is the HDTracks Band On The Run (the dynamically uncompressed version of course).  So I have the full resolution files for home listening, and I can downsample and dither those same files to put an a DAP (iPhone in this case).  Win/win.  But there's so much music that I'm interested in that either hasn't been released in higher than Redbook resolution, or it has but it's peak limited.  Robert Palmer's back catalog is an example where I'm still using the Barry Diament masters because they're still the best.  But I'd love to hear those titles passed through a modern ADC.

 

What I don't want is for there to be a new mastering pass on the material and only MQA appears at the end of the process.  I have plenty of DAPs and DACs.  I won't buy new ones just for MQA.  And besides, the unmolested PCM will be superior to the lossy MQA versions.

[ARQuint]

6 hours 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate the cogent and measured response, Chris. The continued evolution of your approach to the ultimate hot-button topic in audio makes sense to me and and reflects both open-mindedness and principle.

 

We have, I think, explored thoroughly the issue that matters to me, namely the way that audiophiles speak to one another in the public space. No matter how many times I say so, a small core of Vaporware posters can't get their heads around the idea that MQA really isn't of great importance to me—though I have learned a good deal here, even from the forum participants who detest me and my kind. I had, indeed, read Jud's post and found to be a concise, understandable, and reasonable summation of what's wrong with MQA. And I think that Lee S (anyone who thinks he has a "thin skin" is not a very good observer; "glutton for punishment" is more like it) has kept front and center the positions of MQA, Inc. In both cases, all the arguments on both sides were quite familiar—these are two entrenched constituencies. If Lee "regurgitates"—well, so do the Vaporware warriors when they get going on MQA-as-a-lossy-format or a MQA-is -DRM. That's not to say that they're not right and Lee is wrong—just that the positions they represent ossified about 400 pages ago on this epic thread, and I do wonder if Rt66indierock will see fit to shut it down before too much longer. There's so much more to talk about.

 

Paul's perspective was really very helpful, enlivening this forum in a positive way for the first time in a while—probably since the time that Archimago was most active here.  I've also noted that at least a few AS members have surfaced who are interested in talking to each other rather than at each other.

 

I look forward to saying hello to any and all of my AS friends and detractors at AXPONA, where I'll be covering lower-priced loudspeakers for my magazine. I'll be the guy with the armed guard. Armed Old Guard, that is...

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

According to:

 

http://www.axpona.com/sessions_byday.asp

 

MQA is giving a demo/seminar/sales pitch.  Have they been doing this on the show circuit lately?  Do they take questions?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

We have, I think, explored thoroughly the issue that matters to me, namely the way that audiophiles speak to one another in the public space.....

 

bleat bleat bleat...I want to point out that you boys are not being civil for the 142nd time, while we industry spokesmen trade publication writers are taking a fair and balanced approach to MQA, the truth be damned...bleat bleat bleat

[Shadders]

18 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

If Lee "regurgitates"—well, so do the Vaporware warriors when they get going on MQA-as-a-lossy-format or a MQA-is -DRM. That's not to say that they're not right and Lee is wrong—just that the positions they represent ossified about 400 pages ago on this epic thread, and I do wonder if Rt66indierock will see fit to shut it down before too much longer. There's so much more to talk about

Hi,

I disagree here. The main arguments presented here are based on proven facts, when Lee or others are challenged. If those facts are ignored and the same MQA marketing falsehoods repeated, despite evidence being presented proving the falsehoods wrong, people get angry - as if they are being trolled.

 

It reminds of one of my neighbours, who wants to use my land for his purposes. I have to keep on telling him he cannot use it, explain again the situation, regardless of the previous solicitors letter, yet again, he keeps on wanting to discuss it as if i will change my mind. He is an extremely annoying devious little tit.

 

So when the MQA marketing speak is trotted out again, and again, despite proof that the marketing statements are wrong, and knowingly so, then the person is perceived as either a troll or shill.

 

Nothing to be gained by closing the thread. A lot of useful information is contained herein. A few anti MQA people have been banned - not many pro MQA who continue to repeat the marketing lies have been. So, pro MQA people really aren't treated that badly ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[ARQuint]

17 minutes ago, crenca said:

According to:

 

http://www.axpona.com/sessions_byday.asp

 

MQA is giving a demo/seminar/sales pitch.  Have they been doing this on the show circuit lately?  Do they take questions?

 

This will be a presentation in a large room and I'm sure there will be questions/comments taken from the audience. I hope that Chris plans to attend. I won't miss it.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I think it's kind of telling that Mr. Quint, even though he says again and again that he really doesn't care about MQA, wants the one thread that is clearly the thorn in the backside of MQA to be shut down.

[Rt66indierock]

20 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

I appreciate the cogent and measured response, Chris. The continued evolution of your approach to the ultimate hot-button topic in audio makes sense to me and and reflects both open-mindedness and principle.

 

We have, I think, explored thoroughly the issue that matters to me, namely the way that audiophiles speak to one another in the public space. No matter how many times I say so, a small core of Vaporware posters can't get their heads around the idea that MQA really isn't of great importance to me—though I have learned a good deal here, even from the forum participants who detest me and my kind. I had, indeed, read Jud's post and found to be a concise, understandable, and reasonable summation of what's wrong with MQA. And I think that Lee S (anyone who thinks he has a "thin skin" is not a very good observer; "glutton for punishment" is more like it) has kept front and center the positions of MQA, Inc. In both cases, all the arguments on both sides were quite familiar—these are two entrenched constituencies. If Lee "regurgitates"—well, so do the Vaporware warriors when they get going on MQA-as-a-lossy-format or a MQA-is -DRM. That's not to say that they're not right and Lee is wrong—just that the positions they represent ossified about 400 pages ago on this epic thread, and I do wonder if Rt66indierock will see fit to shut it down before too much longer. There's so much more to talk about.

 

Paul's perspective was really very helpful, enlivening this forum in a positive way for the first time in a while—probably since the time that Archimago was most active here.  I've also noted that at least a few AS members have surfaced who are interested in talking to each other rather than at each other.

 

I look forward to saying hello to any and all of my AS friends and detractors at AXPONA, where I'll be covering lower-priced loudspeakers for my magazine. I'll be the guy with the armed guard. Armed Old Guard, that is...

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

 

 

Andy we are going to talk about MQA until MQA Ltd is liquidated and the IP is not in the hands of Bob Stuart, the labels (minority shareholders) or the majority shareholder.