MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

33 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

 

 

 

 

 

Look!  There's Bigfoot!

[KeenObserver]

Closing down this thread will not stop the MQA postings.  They would only pop up on new threads.  The product placement specialists from the promotional companies will still be posting their BS "reviews" of MQA.  The cycle will continue ad infinitum or until MQA is dead.

[rickca]

Actually, things were settling down until Lee came back and stirred the pot again.

[KeenObserver]

And I'll add this: Unless the MQA critics can be silenced.

[rickca]

26 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I hope that Chris plans to attend.

I hope he's practising banging his fist on the table.

[Ralf11]

funny that ARQ uses the term "Vaporware warriors" - he SHOULD have used it ot describe Scroggie & himself

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.

 

I agree - think of recordings similar to the the Mercury recordings. Some if the original broadway recordings. Definitely older stuff. 

 

[KeenObserver]

47 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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.

 

Mr. Quint very "politely" suggested that a poster on this thread was in fact someone who had been scratched.  His intent was to get that person thrown off this site.  Mr. Quint is very "politely" trying to shut down MQA criticism.

Mr. Quint is in a very difficult position.  His magazine has gone all in on MQA and he has to play out the hand.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour 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?

 

 

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

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.

 

 

If I was a dick I’d give them the same treatment they gave me. But, I won’t stoop to that level. I’ll try to attend though. 

 

 

 

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Mr. Quint very "politely" suggested that a poster on this thread was in fact someone who had been scratched.  His intent was to get that person thrown off this site.  Mr. Quint is very "politely" trying to shut down MQA criticism.

Mr. Quint is in a very difficult position.  His magazine has gone all in on MQA and he has to play out the hand.

 

Is Mr. Quint a proper English gentleman? 😋

 

Seriously though, how are they going to play out their very losing all in MQA hand?  Like they always have, win some and lose some.  It's the long game of selling the product, which are audio consumers/music lovers, to the customers, which are their advertisers, that matters in the end to these trade publication writers.  Pounding the civility table here and elsewhere is a bluff that is all part of the game to them.  Mr. Quint is just the guy who talks the civility/political bluff.  Others, like JA attempt to play the technical bluff...

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

If I was a dick I’d give them the same treatment they gave me. But, I won’t stoop to that level. I’ll try to attend though. 

 

 

 

Just eat lots of curried baked beans before the event.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

If I was a dick I’d give them the same treatment they gave me. But, I won’t stoop to that level. I’ll try to attend though. 

 

 

 

 

Remember, all is fair in love and war and the audiophile confidence game.  If you show up, be prepared that they will use you one way or another.  If they ignore you, they will imply later that they allowed you your chance to "civilily" discuss/ask/refute but you did not take it, implying the weakness of your (and by extension all the consumers here) position.  If you are allowed to ask a question, it will imply that they are magnanimous and really do have all the answers...etc. etc. etc. 😉

[Jud]

5 hours ago, botrytis said:

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.

 

In fact it is worse than you think.  Social and sensory expectations are much, much more powerful than most of us realize, something most magic acts have utilized to make their livings for centuries.

 

The demo where the fellow didn't say anything?  Just like the two Audioquest demos I attended (where the AQ music and the comparison music did *not* differ in loudness), after the demo is done, all the demonstrator has to do is say "What did you hear?", and *someone* from the audience will say quickly, "Yours sounded better!", because of course people with good news are eager to please.  Then everyone else will chime in and agree.  The folks who think there was no difference will hesitate out of courtesy and social pressure, and once everyone else is praising what they heard, they'll either feel constrained to keep quiet, or believe that other folks' hearing was simply better.  So - the demonstrator doesn't need to "fix" the demo, or to suggest an answer.  Far better to be able to show everything about the demo setup was above board, and still have the answer you want come with extremely high probability from the audience rather than yourself.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Just eat lots of curried baked beans before the event.

 

 Better still, arrange for a power failure at 3.00PM

[Ralf11]

so it's Maduro Quality AuthQuinticated ??

[Lee Scoggins]

9 hours 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 am not claiming that MQA will be adopted by a major streaming service.  I have been claiming that they NEED to be adopted by a major streaming service to be financially successful.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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

 

It's really a judgment call that there are so many streaming and other options, it is unlikely that MQA will have enough "market power" to limit customer choice as almost all on this forum fear.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

Actually, things were settling down until Lee came back and stirred the pot again.

 

I'm a troublemaker.

 

Or maybe Chris pays me to improve page views...

[tmtomh]

1 hour 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

 

I'm going to go out on a bit of limb here and say I have a positive reaction to much (though not all) of what @ARQuint writes in this comment.

 

I do think that some participants in this thread are unwilling to make a distinction between (A) strongly and forcefully defending important points, and (B) making repeated ad hominem and uncivil attacks.

 

There's a bit of irony - one could even say hypocrisy - in posts here that insist that "facts are facts" and then immediately proceed to pepper their criticism of pro-MQA folks and "old guard" audiophile press members with snark, sarcasm, unproven insinuations, and so on. 

 

Let me be clear - I am not in any way saying or implying that facts are not facts. As I hope folks know, I am 100% dead-set against MQA for the reasons @mansr, @Jud, and many many others have stated (and the reasons I've repeatedly articulated myself in response to @Lee Scoggins' comments).

 

But at some point, discussion becomes pointless without civility - not because we all have to be nice to each other or gloss over real disagreements, but rather because the entire point of discussion is to impact others' perspective: to educate and hopefully to persuade. And if you simply insult those who disagree with you, you're just preening for those who already agree. You might as well shout into a mirror for all the change your comments will make.

 

That said, while I do appreciate and agree with Andrew Quint's emphasis on baseline civility, I do take exception to the equivalency he sets up between Jud and Lee Scoggins. The evaluation of arguments cannot be objective to the extent that mathematical principles are, but I think by any reasonable standard Jud's arguments here are more substantive, more internally consistent, and more attentive to the technical facts of MQA than Lee's are.

Moreover, everyone should note that immediately after pairing Jud and Lee, Andrew Quint then pairs Lee and the more shall-we-say rhetorical anti-MQA folks here - a group of which Jud is most decidedly not a part. I mention this because it highlights the flaw in Andrew's both-sides framing of this discussion. Lee certainly is not as nasty or biting as many of his detractors - but the quality of his arguments are no better than those of the folks Andrew is upset about here. By contrast, Jud's arguments - not to mention mansr's and many others' - are far superior. And there is no equivalent pro-MQA voice here with substantive, compelling, fact-based arguments.

 

This is why I think @The Computer Audiophile's good-faith investigation into MQA inevitably led him away from the hoped-for middle ground and into anti-MQA territory. The facts simply don't support MQA's value or its claims - and if the repetitiveness of this 400-page thread has any value, it is that it demonstrates that even with virtually infinite time and opportunities, MQA cannot make its case.

 

So civility, yes. But false equivalence in the name of civility? No thank you.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

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/

 

That is such a great image.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

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.

 

Not really.  You have compact files sizes as well which is important to streaming services.  Also, the MQA deblurring filters are not apodizing filters as I originally thought.  They are a different filter it turns out.

 

The reason I prefer the MQA filters is that it sounds more like live classical and jazz acoustic music which I record.

 

MQA is not the same as someone adding EQ.  It's correcting for problems in the conversion and that gets the final result closer to the live event that was recorded.

 

So you wind up with a few benefits:  

 

1.  Hirez files with no losses in the audible range

2.  Compact file size and business model advantages via a premium tier

3.  Sound improvements via the deblurring filters.

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Not really.  You have compact files sizes as well which is important to streaming services.  Also, the MQA deblurring filters are not apodizing filters as I originally thought.  They are a different filter it turns out.

 

The reason I prefer the MQA filters is that it sounds more like live classical and jazz acoustic music which I record.

 

MQA is not the same as someone adding EQ.  It's correcting for problems in the conversion and that gets the final result closer to the live event that was recorded.

 

So you wind up with a few benefits:  

 

1.  Hirez files with no losses in the audible range

2.  Compact file size and business model advantages via a premium tier

3.  Sound improvements via the deblurring filters.

 

In your opinion.

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm going to go out on a bit of limb here and say I have a positive reaction to much (though not all) of what @ARQuint writes in this comment.

 

I do think that some participants in this thread are unwilling to make a distinction between (A) strongly and forcefully defending important points, and (B) making repeated ad hominem and uncivil attacks.

 

There's a bit of irony - one could even say hypocrisy - in posts here that insist that "facts are facts" and then immediately proceed to pepper their criticism of pro-MQA folks and "old guard" audiophile press members with snark, sarcasm, unproven insinuations, and so on. 

 

Let me be clear - I am not in any way saying or implying that facts are not facts. As I hope folks know, I am 100% dead-set against MQA for the reasons @mansr, @Jud, and many many others have stated (and the reasons I've repeatedly articulated myself in response to @Lee Scoggins' comments).

 

But at some point, discussion becomes pointless without civility - not because we all have to be nice to each other or gloss over real disagreements, but rather because the entire point of discussion is to impact others' perspective: to educate and hopefully to persuade. And if you simply insult those who disagree with you, you're just preening for those who already agree. You might as well shout into a mirror for all the change your comments will make.

 

That said, while I do appreciate and agree with Andrew Quint's emphasis on baseline civility, I do take exception to the equivalency he sets up between Jud and Lee Scoggins. The evaluation of arguments cannot be objective to the extent that mathematical principles are, but I think by any reasonable standard Jud's arguments here are more substantive, more internally consistent, and more attentive to the technical facts of MQA than Lee's are.

Moreover, everyone should note that immediately after pairing Jud and Lee, Andrew Quint then pairs Lee and the more shall-we-say rhetorical anti-MQA folks here - a group of which Jud is most decidedly not a part. I mention this because it highlights the flaw in Andrew's both-sides framing of this discussion. Lee certainly is not as nasty or biting as many of his detractors - but the quality of his arguments are no better than those of the folks Andrew is upset about here. By contrast, Jud's arguments - not to mention mansr's and many others' - are far superior. And there is no equivalent pro-MQA voice here with substantive, compelling, fact-based arguments.

 

This is why I think @The Computer Audiophile's good-faith investigation into MQA inevitably led him away from the hoped-for middle ground and into anti-MQA territory. The facts simply don't support MQA's value or its claims - and if the repetitiveness of this 400-page thread has any value, it is that it demonstrates that even with virtually infinite time and opportunities, MQA cannot make its case.

 

So civility, yes. But false equivalence in the name of civility? No thank you.

 

@ARQuint, your the political bluffer expert here, why don't you explain to @tmtomh his fundamental error in the first half of his post?

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, botrytis said:

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.

 

I have my doubts on the veracity of this statement.  The Peter McGrath demo files clearly show the benefits of the MQA encoding.  It's not subtle but quite material.  I've repeated it on several systems including my own system.  Everything about the MQA files is better from timbre of the instruments to soundstaging to room tone.

 

It sounds like your mind was made up before the demo.

[KeenObserver]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I have my doubts on the veracity of this statement.  The Peter McGrath demo files clearly show the benefits of the MQA encoding.  It's not subtle but quite material.  I've repeated it on several systems including my own system.  Everything about the MQA files is better from timbre of the instruments to soundstaging to room tone.

 

It sounds like your mind was made up before the demo.

 

In your opinion.