MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

Just now, Jud said:

It's after the famous first line of Moby Dick: "Call me Slapowitz."

Has anyone actually read Moby Dick?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

It has been claimed that the ringing of a filter causes blur, and everyone seems to have accepted this as fact, when those making these claims have never provided proof.

 

Near as I can tell, what MQA calls "blurring" is ringing.

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

Has anyone actually read Moby Dick?

 

I did and enjoyed the hell out of it.  Beautifully written, I thought.

 

I was assigned to do a book report on it in 11th grade.  I read a lot of the literary criticism about the various symbolic reasons the whale was white.  Then I wrote my report based on the thesis that the whale was white for identification purposes: after all, "Thar she blows!  The white whale!" is a hell of a lot more dramatic than "Bring 'er in a mite closer, Cap'n, I can't tell yet."

 

The teacher gave me a B because I'd flown in the face of the critical orthodoxy, but thought the thesis was interesting enough he had me read the report to the class.  When I was done, before returning to my seat, I said "Good enough to read to the class, good enough for an A," and by gosh, he did.

[KeenObserver]

6 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Not only has that always been the case via the site's rules, but I'm at a loss to identify this supposed preponderance of attacks and the like. Who was called ignorant and when?

 

I must have missed something.

 

I believe he is referring to the person that posted this:

 

"Your actions certainly suggest you and a few others here definitely have an agenda.  I wish you well, but doing bad things like you are doing will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.  That isn't a threat by the way, just a prediction. 

 

Have a nice life. "

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

Near as I can tell, what MQA calls "blurring" is ringing.

Which means if they left well enough alone, it would be around 100 kHz or higher and of no consequence whatsoever.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

51 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I saw that the author of the article is known on this site. Something, something, mother.....

 

Anyway - is that your real name ??? or a pseudonym ?? or an anagram ???

 

Regards,

Shadders.

My friends call me Izzy.

 

Question for you...IS there an "MQA Police???? 😲

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

I did and enjoyed the hell out of it.  Beautifully written, I thought.

 

I was assigned to do a book report on it in 11th grade.  I read a lot of the literary criticism about the various symbolic reasons the whale was white.  Then I wrote my report based on the thesis that the whale was white for identification purposes: after all, "Thar she blows!  The white whale!" is a hell of a lot more dramatic than "Bring 'er in a mite closer, Cap'n, I can't tell yet."

 

The teacher gave me a B because I'd flown in the face of the critical orthodoxy, but thought the thesis was interesting enough he had me read the report to the class.  When I was done, before returning to my seat, I said "Good enough to read to the class, good enough for an A," and by gosh, he did.

I can see why you became a lawyer.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Question for you...IS there an "MQA Police???? 😲

It's called the MQuisition.

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

I can see why you became a lawyer.

 

Things might've been different if everyone in my college science classes hadn't been spending all night every night in the library trying to get perfect grades to get into medical school.  I did fine my first year, but decided I didn't want that to be my college experience.  (Another way of looking at it is that I was lazy and wanted to party more.)

[Daccord]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's called the MQuisition.

I certainly didn't expect that.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I know this may be regressing, but, has MQA Ltd or the supporting Hifi press ever presented evidence of ringing in an audio file ? (by which i mean CD's)

 

It has been claimed that the ringing of a filter causes blur, and everyone seems to have accepted this as fact, when those making these claims have never provided proof.

 

Are the AES and Hifi press so lame in capability, that they believe everything that they are told ???, where the Hifi press repeat it as fact, and seem to not understand what they are saying.

 

Surely the MQA Ltd website would have real world examples that people could, if they have the relevant CD, analyse and confirm the ringing. Why is this basic fact or prove, never been presented ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Great comment @Shadders. Not "regressing" at all... Rather it strikes at the heart of the problem, doesn't it?

 

In all these years of debates, pages upon pages spent on MQA, bad feelings on either side, real $$$ spent on implementation for Tidal, software like these Android/iOS players, decoders like Audirvana/Roon, the marketing hype, etc... What does this achieve?

 

At best, MQA Ltd. made a few bucks (probably not). Some hardware manufacturers got a chance to claim that the next product refresh "Now decodes MQA!". Maybe a few in the music industry felt that their "crown jewels" were kept safer by not releasing a hi-res bit-perfect copy... Oh yes, of course it gave members of the audiophile press something to write about; eyeballs reading articles and clicks on a website are good for some revenue at least (perhaps some even got directly paid for MQA support... who knows).

 

But beyond the commerce and dollars changing hands, what lies beneath? As your comment implies, all of this is built upon a fantasy. A salve for an ailment that either does not exist, or if it did, absolutely incurable using the MQA snake oil. It has been obvious for awhile now (thanks especially to @mansr and @Miska) that there is no reality-based foundation from which the company is building upon to truly benefit the music lover interested in sound quality or fidelity.

 

There has never been demonstrations of MQA being able to "de-blur" because the "blurring" they speak of as if with authority itself is unfounded. They have never defended the value of "authentication" for end users. The "studio sound" they speak of is meaningless. They were coy about practical A/B demonstrations when they had the chance years ago at audio shows to the public. Bob Stuart started out strong making the rounds with articles in Stereophile, TAS and even here as I recall giving his spiel but has since retreated to silence (and presumably some level of embarrassment).

 

In his stead, we are "treated" with innuendos, opinions, murmurs from questionable actors (specifically those who end up being banned). Undisciplined members of the second-rate audiophile press who appear unable or incapable of understanding basic scientific principles (or apparently even just being decent human beings in their level of discourse as the case may be). And ridiculous company officials who also cannot concede that they have lost the intellectual battle - but just the same are paid to vigorously maintain the hype.

 

This whole sad episode has clearly demonstrated the general ineptness of the audiophile press to speak truth. At least when it comes to MQA, it appears that there is no journalistic integrity left; no ability to speak truth against the power of the Industry nor to independently explore the issue without dragging Industry members to comment. This has only made the hobby appear even more ridiculous than it already is with all its bizarre products, beliefs, and rituals.

 

Well guys, I really hope MQA marks the nadir in some ways for this hobby. Or at least an interesting landmark signalling some kind of change. That maybe the proverbial "silver lining" is that out of this, audiophiles actually learn to take on a more skeptical position. To demand evidence. To recognize that some dude expressing his subjective opinion is the lowest of the levels of evidence - even if that dude has the initials BS and brings with him pages of irreplicable claims. Maybe the Industry takes note that indeed one cannot just come out and make unsubstantiated products without expecting significant scrutiny. Maybe as a community, audiophiles recognize that we are not sheep in a flock of "believers".

 

It has certainly been fun reading these comments over the years . Wowzers, 493 thread pages. Epic... 🙂

 

 

[Paul R]

58 minutes ago, mansr said:

Has anyone actually read Moby Dick?

 

How could anyone get through high school without reading it?  It actually turned out to be enjoyable, and you pick up these references all over the place.

Like chasing the white whale perhaps. 

 

Paul 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I can see why you became a lawyer.

Hmm..What did Bill Shakespeare say about lawyers?😄

[Ralf11]

43 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Hmm..What did Bill Shakespeare say about lawyers?😄

 

He said a couple of things.  One was that in order to destroy the duly constituted govt. andseizee power, we should first kill all of the lawyers.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Has anyone actually read Moby Dick?

Reminds me of this Steve Jobs rant:

 

“... the fact is that people don’t read anymore ... Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”

[Daccord]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

 

Thanks folks, but @mansr in particular and @Miska did all the heavy lifting.

Never in the field of consumer audio has so much been owed by so many to so few.

[KeenObserver]

Ultimately it is not being pro or con,  it is being truthful.

[firedog]

9 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Got a bit a chuckle out of this post I found on Twittering Machines:

 

"I didn’t die, the MQA police did not knock down the barn door and steal all of my non-MQA music, I didn’t have to pay anyone anything more than I was paying them before, and, this may be irrelevant to some people who spend a lot of time on hifi forums talking about MQA, the music I listened to sounded damn good. How good? Damn good. For those getting all uncomfortable with that fact, I’ll ease your mind by letting you know this was not a test."

 

https://twitteringmachines.com/news-tidal-mqa-iphone-24-96/

He's one of the many (yes) people who thinks MQA often sounds very good. And that's all he cares about. Don't bother him about blind testing, tech arguments etc. Doesn't interest him.

 

He's not alone, many people have that approach: "I did a basic comparison in my system and thought it sounded good...."

 

BTW, when MQA was first released he highly praised the high frequency sound of a particular Doors cut. The late Charlie Hansen (they were friends) then came online and explained to him that what he was hearing was actually the fact that the MQA version had removed some of the resolution/subtle  detail in the track and that he was hearing "less" of what was there..... https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/87573.html

[KeenObserver]

While it is not on the scale of evil empires, MQA proposes to place a substantial burden on the music consumer.

So I think, perhaps not on a grand scale, but the following applies, nevertheless:

 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

Edmund Burke

[rwdvis]

11 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

To me, the argument is stupid simple:

 

• Tidal has lossy MQA
• Qobuz has (mostly) the same lossless material that has not been adulterated by MQA

Wouldn't pretty much everyone pick the lossless choice?

The music streaming service providers are at the mercy of the labels.  How long do you think it will be until the labels decide that Qobuz needs more MQA?  When presented with MQA content, how has Qobuz handled it so far?

 

I wouldn’t get too excited for any streaming service just yet.

[Thuaveta]

14 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

How long do you think it will be until the labels decide that Qobuz needs more MQA?  When presented with MQA content, how has Qobuz handled it so far?

 

That, and so much for the simplification of inventory argument, too.

 

How a regular consumer is supposed to navigate this clusterfuck, and how that's eventually going to achieve anything but possibly make MQA Ltd financially sustainable is beyond me.

[firedog]

Just noticed that ProStudioMasters is selling "24/192 MQA" versions of albums at the same premium price as regular 24/192 PCM....coming to a download store near you in the near future?

[SilvesterH]

Nice to see that at least some knowledgeable people have some honest take on MQA

 

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6448

[Don Hills]

On 3/14/2019 at 5:02 AM, Lee Scoggins said:

...   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. 

 

Fail. If the only tracks available are MQA, how can they offer a premium tier? Same quality sound for both tiers... 

 

Even if "lorez" remains available, the vast majority of subscribers will still not pay more for MQA. No change from the current model. And what the services (Spotify etc) save on storage and bandwidth with MQA compared to full hirez, they will lose paying the MQA royalty. (Not directly, but the labels will increase the fee charged to the services to recoup the royalty.)

[mansr]

Just now, Don Hills said:

And what the services (Spotify etc) save on storage and bandwidth with MQA compared to full hirez

Once again, there are no such savings. Much of the MQA catalogue is made from 48 kHz masters where it actually increases the file size. For the rest, they could simply offer an honest 96 kHz version rather than fake higher numbers.