MQA is Vaporware

[Miska]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

Agree or not, MQA's answer is to create a distribution approach that piggybacks it on popular streaming services.  If you give the customer easier access to hirez, you may get more fans of it.  And in the process you provide a way for the studios and labels to offer hirez and get more dollars for the artist by offering a premium tier. 

 

Easiest access is one that uses standard content formats and doesn't require buying new hardware.

 

MQA doesn't provide any improvement that.

 

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is the issue that MQA is trying to solve which is, "how do we get better sound if only a very small number are interested in high resolution digital?"

 

Agree or not, MQA's answer is to create a distribution approach that piggybacks it on popular streaming services.  If you give the customer easier access to hirez, you may get more fans of it.  And in the process you provide a way for the studios and labels to offer hirez and get more dollars for the artist by offering a premium tier. 

 

Eh? MQA is addressing how to better monetize streaming audio, similar to how You Tube faced the issue of how to monetize their services.  Everything else, every benefit, is addressed towards that. 

 

Streaming audio, even hi-res audio, is so much less strain on bandwidth than video that savings in bandwidth are minuscule.  AWS probably would tier the service anyway so that it makes zero impact whether you stream CD or Hi-res. Apple or Spotify would laugh themselves silly at the idea any bandwidth saved by MQA would actually even pay for the cost of MQA licensing. 

 

What on earth makes you think otherwise friend? Aren’t you in the IT business as your day job? 

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

As an analysis of everyday human communication and rhetorical strategery this is not true.  You were trained as a lawyer in an adversarial system - not in a scientific or 'truth' system where the facts are laid bear and "BAM!", everybody sees them and agrees.  There are very few human domains, if any, where "when you state simple technical truths in an understandable fashion..."  the good you say follows, actually follows.  If what you say were true then it would there would be world peace, the end of hunger, and unicorns and rainbows for every child.  

 

That ain't reality...

 

Careful, you're being logical.  😁

 

I think you might be surprised at the degree to which the legal system, adversarial though it is, is constrained toward truth and scientific validity.  (You might have a look at the Supreme Court's Daubert case, the leading modern precedent on evidentiary standards for science in US courts.)

 

And I've been involved in litigations on highly technical matters where (1) the ability to state the truth understandably was vital, and (2) any technical experts trying to play fast and loose with the truth were rather quickly undone on cross examination, or at deposition preceding trial.

 

All that having been said, as a general proposition you're absolutely right about the "unicorns and rainbows" thing, sad as that is to acknowledge.  I'm hoping with this somewhat specialized audience, that may not be so much the case.

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The only "temper tantrum" Paul was Derek pounding on the desk and Chris getting flustered and leaving.  Mike and Ken were pretty civil and stuck around to answer questions after Chris left and also after the seminar ended with Steve.

 

You really shouldn't make assumptions about the event if you were not there.

 

Bullshit.  Are you saying the video is doctored?  Or are you just being defensive and condescending for some reason?

 

And you purposely twisted what I said there. *Your* justification for their bad behavior was *exactly* what a young child uses to justify a temper tantrum. Fine to disagree, but be accurate and actually address what was said.

 

 

 

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

be accurate

 

I'd say that was, errm, optimistic?   

[tmtomh]

36 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is the issue that MQA is trying to solve which is, "how do we get better sound if only a very small number are interested in high resolution digital?"

 

Agree or not, MQA's answer is to create a distribution approach that piggybacks it on popular streaming services.  If you give the customer easier access to hirez, you may get more fans of it.  And in the process you provide a way for the studios and labels to offer hirez and get more dollars for the artist by offering a premium tier. 

 

How can you still be flogging this argument, when just a day or two ago you admitted - volunteered the info, in fact - that the major labels are still providing "thousands of albums" worth of high-res music in conventional PCM format?

 

MQA's piggybacking on streaming services is irrelevant if high-res PCM is already showing up in large volume on those services.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

trade publication writers who have no intention of acknowledging the truth or anything else but their own interests.  

So make yourself look like a jerk with no change in outcome?

[Thuaveta]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

So make yourself look like a jerk with no change in outcome?

 

You're of course right, but between us - should one really care if people of the caliber of trade publication writers calling themselves journalists think one a jerk ?

[Paul R]

56 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

As for what the MQA team should do, they did share a lot of information with Chris from Day 1 including the lengthy Q&A from Bob Stuart.  But they feel there is not a fair debate to be had on this forum so they are ignoring it.

 

Had to think about that. I would not want to discuss it here either, were I them. 

 

Have them post it on their own forum, publish a white paper, present at the next RMAF, or ask Chris for a moderated forum. They have plenty of options, but they do not have plenty of time. 

 

 

[kumakuma]

Just now, Paul R said:

 

Had to think about that. I would not want to discuss it here either, were I them. 

 

Have them post it on their own forum, publish a white paper, present at the next RMAF, or ask Chris for a moderated forum. They have plenty of options, but they do not have plenty of time. 

 

 

 

If I ran the company, letting @Lee Scoggins continue to advocate my cause, even on a pro bono basis, would be the last thing I would want.

[rickca]

I have no idea why we're litigating all this once again.  No new arguments have emerged from the MQA cheerleaders.  Nobody is going to switch teams.

 

Maybe we should tell MQA that Archimago is a member of their secret Facebook group and watch them go crazy trying to identify the mole.  We could make a movie about it.  

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Here's a report.

 

That's great. Thanks Paul.

 

So, it seems I didn't do too bad a job at aligning the files manually:

 

The Delta Phase plot looks interesting:

 

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

 

Mani.

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

So make yourself look like a jerk with no change in outcome?

 

No, but we don't let them use and abuse the dialogue either.  We point out their pathos (i.e. their rhetorical strategery) plainly.  We don't have to be twinky's in doing this - we can call bulls#%t bulls#%t when it's bulls#%t.  They will claim "abrasiveness", "jerkiness", and lack of civility but that is them simply using and abusing the dialogue and forum format.

 

I along with rickca am wondering if the plot has moved on  - we are long past the technical exploratory/meaning stage, and the technical explanation/rebuffing stage has run it's course.  Now what?  How is this story going to end?

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

If it is possible to tap into the signal before the MQA filters - then we could see the difference between the MQA deblurred file and a normal high resolution file of the same song.

 

I think my files are about as close as we can get at this point.

 

Mani.

[rando]

3 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

 

So now, not only should these people control the way music is distributed, but they also have a right to control the discussion of said format, and if they're not given that, they're right in throwing all the hissy fits they want... good thing nobody's being saying there's a problem with MQA Ltd's behaviour, or aims.

 

You were doing well until you started considering joining the fight instead of those capable of closing the door behind them and barring it to quarantine those beyond help. 

 

2 hours ago, mav52 said:

 

Yep pretty accurate of what happen.  The MQA presence at Chris's presentation looked like kids fighting over a ball.  Not very mature from a consumers view.

 

Maybe these events will come back around to either stripped at the waist waging of war or half naked parties equally out of control.  In any case, even this ugly middle ground, taping any of the livelier bits for the wives and prosecutors is a bad idea. 

 

2 hours ago, manisandher said:

Nowadays I'm more than happy with simple redbook. Upsampling in XXHighEnd or HQPlayer and sending to a decent (preferably filterless) DAC, redbook can sound truly stunning.

 

Mani.

 

Highly reasonable. Until a point is reached where the speed of business allows enough infrastructure and goods to be directed at mainstream audiences. There's palpable electricity listening to the MQA and acting in the putsch against it. So long as one plans to smartly be far away by the time heels are clicking on pavement beside slowly rolling MQA heavy artillery in front of a hostage crowd.  

 

Is it clear how humorous I find calling a Brit out for lying and skullduggery?  My only overwhelming complaint in all of this would have to be that BS didn't engage a co-conspirator with the initials SQ. 

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, rando said:

  My only overwhelming complaint in all of this would have to be that BS didn't engage a co-conspirator with the initials SQ. 

 

Yet, Audiophiledom was (and still is) a large ripe melon when it comes to the SQ play.  In this way audiophiles (but not the rest of the 99% of music lovers) deserve MQA...

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I think @The Computer Audiophile hit this exactly right in his presentation.  In a world where we think nothing of streaming video on and through our mobile phones, where you can pick up 4-6 TB of storage for less than $150 at a local store or online, and where both these situations are going in the direction of faster and larger, cheaper - MQA is a solution whose time has come and gone.

 

Pay attention to the presentation video: Chris's slide about 5G and mobile/wi-fi speeds getting faster was something that really set off the MQA folks.  Now whether you know anything about the technical side of MQA or not, you surely see mobile/wi-fi/home internet speeds getting faster, and you surely know that streaming video, let alone streaming audio, is ubiquitous on the Web, home or mobile.  And you therefore can understand that there is no consumer value to MQA's file size minimization, whether via compression or the ADPCM (adaptive differential pulse code modulation) @Paul R mentioned.  But right there on the video you see MQA arguing against the faster cheaper future everyone knows is coming (really, for streaming audio purposes, is already here), because they realize it means at least half their supposed value proposition is quite evidently worthless.

 

It is still worth something in cost savings to the streaming companies (and their part owners, the record labels, who also partly own MQA Ltd.). So it's easy to see why that upset the MQA people: smaller file size and "one format for all" is a benefit to the corporations involved - not really to the consumer. That's part of the ecosystem that Lee Scoggins talks about, and why Jim Austin is in favor of MQA - they are all about "the industry" and mistakenly think "what's good for the industry is good for the consumer". Unfortunately the opposite is often true, and they want consumers  to think they are getting something when actually they are paying for a benefit to the corporations involved. 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

It is still worth something in cost savings to the streaming companies (and their part owners, the record labels, who also partly own MQA Ltd.). So it's easy to see why that upset the MQA people: smaller file size and "one format for all" is a benefit to the corporations involved - not really to the consumer.

And then there's the fact that there isn't actually any size reduction.

[firedog]

Just now, mansr said:

And then there's the fact that there isn't actually any size reduction.

Well there is under some scenarios, just not the amount the MQA people claim. 

[mansr]

Just now, firedog said:

Well there is under some scenarios, just not the amount the MQA people claim. 

No more than standard FLAC with a little (shaped) dither can provide. Moreover, a 48/24 source file actually becomes bigger after MQA coding, and these account for a large fraction of the catalogue.

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

It is still worth something in cost savings to the streaming companies (and their part owners, the record labels, who also partly own MQA Ltd.). So it's easy to see why that upset the MQA people: smaller file size and "one format for all" is a benefit to the corporations involved - not really to the consumer. That's part of the ecosystem that Lee Scoggins talks about, and why Jim Austin is in favor of MQA - they are all about "the industry" and mistakenly think "what's good for the industry is good for the consumer". Unfortunately the opposite is often true, and they want consumers  to think they are getting something when actually they are paying for a benefit to the corporations involved. 

 

If there is a cost savings (would be nice to know if Paul's speculation about the cost structure were true).

 

If there is, then as multiple folks have pointed out, non-proprietary compression will work just fine.  Combine that with @John Dyson's point that the compression isn't used in the way it would technically do the most good, and I think the conclusion that the compression is for IP protection purposes (MQA's and the labels') is inescapable.

[beetlemania]

2 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

People who stream hi-rez do so full well with the knowledge they are doing so (and paying for it), and  typically don’t need it compressed or dumbed down, only to have to have special hardware to unpack it.

 

But . . . but New World birthing! Bigger than Copernicus!!!

[beetlemania]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is the issue that MQA is trying to solve which is, "how do we get better sound if only a very small number are interested in high resolution digital?"

 

Agree or not, MQA's answer is to create a distribution approach that piggybacks it on popular streaming services.  If you give the customer easier access to hirez, you may get more fans of it.  And in the process you provide a way for the studios and labels to offer hirez and get more dollars for the artist by offering a premium tier. 

 

Are you a parody account?

[Paul R]

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

It is still worth something in cost savings to the streaming companies (and their part owners, the record labels, who also partly own MQA Ltd.). So it's easy to see why that upset the MQA people: smaller file size and "one format for all" is a benefit to the corporations involved - not really to the consumer. That's part of the ecosystem that Lee Scoggins talks about, and why Jim Austin is in favor of MQA - they are all about "the industry" and mistakenly think "what's good for the industry is good for the consumer". Unfortunately the opposite is often true, and they want consumers  to think they are getting something when actually they are paying for a benefit to the corporations involved. 

 

I have not seen a cost benefit analysis in three years that came out in favor of cutting down streaming size by trading additional processing costs. At least not in normal environments. Space rated communication busses, yes. The U.S., Canada, most of Europe, and even the Middle East? Nope.

 

Do you know of any you can reference? Just curious by the way, not challenging. 

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, rando said:

Is it clear how humorous I find calling a Brit out for lying and skullduggery?

Hi,

As a Brit, should i be offended by this ? I dunno ?

 

Is it akin to saying all Frenchmen wear stripe vests, a black beret, ride a bike, with a string of onions around their neck, saying "haw he haw he haw...." ???

 

Or akin to all Germans wearing shorts, with braces, short sleeved shirts, and a trilby hat with feathers in it, bending their knees and extending the braces whilst saying "ooom pa pa pa pa" ???

 

(all stereotypes obtained from Family Guy)

 

Regards,

Shadders.