MQA is Vaporware

[rando]

31 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Building well means you can charge a fair price and retain the profits. Building poorly means either it won't sell, or you will be involved in so much litigation that the profits will disappear. 

 

In actual practice the currently relevant definition of greed is stockpiling distinctly lower quality goods to meet the crush of demand resulting from honest well meaning accolades exclaimed by the initial few who didn't receive an inferior product or presentation. 

[John Dyson]

5 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

None taken. I was just trying to point out  the similar style in thought process, not they are in the same vein of severity at all.  BUT, it is a common denominator to this type of thinking.

Thank you so much for not taking offense -- I HAD to let off some emotional steam.  I truly give a darned and cannot fix the problem for everyone.  It would be nice if the snake oil perveyors could get an honest job also!!!

I love my music (however tired I am listening to it right now -- doing it for a project), and I wanna make it more available in the simplest, purest form possible.  I want no more strings attached, everyone abiding by the licensing (within reason), and want everyone be able to enjoy their hobby, profession, or simple casual listening.  It really doesn't need to be complicated...  Some people try to make it complicated  anyway.

 

John

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

ML's methodology sums up the obvious limitations of the way almost every review is done in the trade publications.  Knock those who want to see some sort of unsighted testing all you want (for all the real problems/limitations of this or any other method), the reason we have a voodoo infested hobby is due in part to the accepted methodology.  

 

it isn't that "blind testing, tech arguments etc. don't interest" ML, it is much worse than that

 

valid analyses prevent the BS that such people rely on to assume the mantle of Audio Authority (aka Golden Ears")

 

that would expose the rotting lasagna at the heart of the industry, or should I say "egosystem"?

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

There is a commonality between this, anti-vaxxers and also fake news. All come from the point of people wanting to be right and the common issue of finding others with the same ideals. There was a great article on this type of topic about the Flint Water Crisis - https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/opinions/flint-water-myths-scientific-dark-age-roy-edwards/index.html

 

They call it the Scientific Dark Age. I mean, maybe it is a little too alarmist but the gist is definitely there. Flat earther, anti-vaxxers, Fake news, Climate change deniers, and pseudo-science audiophile Dom all fit into this category. It is hard to fight it, when people do not want to admit they are wrong.

 

I blame science professors for this!

 

This thread is expanding in scope...  linking the transient intermodulation distortion of MQA, and eliding it as the new Calvinism is certainly leading us to a pre-post-modern deconstructivist weltmockschnaug.

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, fung0 said:

 

Like fire, greed is an inherently destructive force. It can't be eradicated from existence, but it is dangerous and must be tightly controlled at all times.

 

Human systems are not fundamentally driven by greed, but by cooperation. Humans have risen to dominate this planet by virtue of their unrivaled ability to band together in vast, highly complex cooperative endeavors.

 

What's more, most individual people are not driven by greed. For the vast majority of us, enough really is enough. All of us have ambitions, but the few who preach 'greed is good' are parasitic outliers, who ask us to accept the gospel that would justify their own pathological craving for dominance.

 

It's worrisome that so many people have bought into this con. Gullibility is an unfortunate consequence of our innate need to cooperate, and is a primary mechanism exploited by those cancerous individuals who really are motivated by greed. Reason and communication are parts of the immune system that have been broken down of late, and must be rebuilt.

 

I was being a little cheekey with the comment you replied to. 

 

But greed in its simplest form, is simply wanting more than you need. Who defines exactly how much someone needs? Society? Government? Church? Bible/Koran/Tao? A televangelist? 

 

It is a very slipperly slope, and the "Sin of Greed" was indisputably used to control and pacify the poorer classes over and over historically.

"You have enough slop to eat that you are not starving! Be grateful to [God||King||Government||etc]!!"

 

I think we all want more than we need, and work to get that. In that sense, greed is nothing more than another motivation to work hard and succeed. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

This is a slight deviation off the subject, and NOT, NEVER meant to be disrespectful to anyone...  However, in the rock-hard professional audio/recording community (I am on the periphery only), there is a disrespectful term sometimes used when chortling about some of the misguided audio lovers who REALLY want to do the right thing, but have been misled in a very  very cruel way -- 'audiofool'.  Now, DO NOT take offense, because I had been an audiophile in the past -- but as a technically knowledgeable person, seldom (never) ventured into the insanely esoteric realm -- just the technically best that I could afford.

 

However, there is a big group (I don't know how large) of people who *love* audio, and want their experience to be as good as possible given their limitations.  It is sometimes best to have 'financial lmitations', common sense, and a bit of ACCURATE technical knowledge. There ARE profit mongers who are so much in love of taking advantage of the (affluent) audio lovers, that it is sickening. (This is similar to the MQA issue, and advocacy that is either misguided (term intended kindly by me) or misleading (intended unkindly by me.)

 

MQA seems to be a media/software variant on the general l$100K CD player theme:  How can we 'soak' people for their money?

 

These snake oil people are not stupid (usually), but seem to be willing to claim half-truths to vulnerable people.  I don't care if someone has lots of money to waste, but PLEASE I hope that those with the ability to waste spend their money in a way that it benefits more than their egos.  Get the reasonbly technical best equipment that you can, really DO THAT!!!  Get the best, not 'better' than the best!!!

 

If someone is planning to purchase something that is 'better than the best', or somehow 'elite' -- please tell them caveat emptor in the kindest way possible.  I truly feel bad for people who misspend their money, or the similar idea about schemes like MQA -- it is for the purpose of control and/or money -- it is not intended to benefit either the customer or the artist!!!

 

My two cents -- again...  And I did NOT mean to disrepect anyone, but rather to make a kind and supportive wakeup call.  I could make stronger emotional complaints about MQA, but I now suspect that the knowledgeable person, who doesn't have a specific financial/political interest has already been dissuaded (by others cogent comments and explanation.)  It (and other unnecessary complexities)  just aren't in the best interests of most people in the audio community.

 

John

(grin) 

 

A couple of my friends and myself sometimes refer to some of our audiophile friends as going through various stages, ranging from Newbie to Mature. It is not, of course, fully applicable to everyone, but it is amusing how well some folks fit into the 7 Stages of Audiophile Development.  

 

1. Baby Audiophile - buys lower cost gear, gets hooked on audiophile sound
    
2. Toddler Audiophile - buys more and higher level gear, usually with some suspicious and critical thinking
    
3. Pre-Adolescent Audiophile - buys some really expensive gear, starts to wonder if it makes sense, because does not really hear that much of a difference. Defends purchases with vigor because it cost an arm and a leg, looses all critical thinking
    
4. Adolescent Audiophile - Rebels, goes and buys pro gear …
    
5. Young adult Audiofile - Realizes the music is probably about as important as the gear, or that they are never going to be absolutely satisfied. Regains ability to think critically about audio gear
    
6. Adult Audiophile - Specializes in one area, computer audio, streaming, portable, vinyl, etc. Passionate, but also critical, keeps a hold of his wallet. 
    
7. Old Fart Audiophile - spends as little as possible, gleefully uses pro gear where appropriate, enjoys a lot of audiophile grade listening, snears at super expensive cables and secretly uses 12g lamp cord for his speakers. 

*This is purely a work of fiction, no resemblence to any person, living or dead is intended. Of course, some people fall way outside this scale.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[miguelito]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

There's one thing in common: greed.

I read Apple's reply in full. Actually I would Apple is making a fair point.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

They call it the Scientific Dark Age. I mean, maybe it is a little too alarmist but the gist is definitely there. Flat earther, anti-vaxxers, Fake news, Climate change deniers, and pseudo-science audiophile Dom all fit into this category. It is hard to fight it, when people do not want to admit they are wrong.

 

Yet, there is a division in your list.  Not sure what it means.  Flat earther, anti-vaxxers, Climate change deniers are all outside the establishment structures of "power" and market/cultural influence.  Fake news is probably controversial depending on your preferred politics.  I believe most (but not all) "fake news" comes from within the establishment.  pseudo-science audiophiledom?  It is the establishment bar none.  Besides a few "mavericks" and consumer oriented forums, pseudo-science is what Audiophiledom is essentially about.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

...but as a technically knowledgeable person, seldom (never) ventured into the insanely esoteric realm -- just the technically best that I could afford....However, there is a big group (I don't know how large) of people who *love* audio, and want their experience to be as good as possible given their limitations.  It is sometimes best to have 'financial limitations', common sense, and a bit of ACCURATE technical knowledge.

 

 

 

Your whole post was well stated but I want to highlight this.  I wonder if there is a way that these folks to who you refer to here could be better served.  I have no hope that the trade publications are going to serve them for two reasons:  JA and ARQuint (among others) participation here has demonstrated that they have their heads so far up their own audiophile-myth-hole, they truly believe they are serving these folks.  No amount of evidence is going to change their mythos, they are true believers in their (own self serving) audiophile mother ship.  The second reason is that of course they are going to serve the bling "high end", the guy with more money than sense.  Such low hanging fruit is too easy, and doing the hard work of skepticism, real comparison, real technical journalism  - all that is work.

 

 

[new_media]

13 minutes ago, Paul R said:

(grin) 

 

A couple of my friends and myself sometimes refer to some of our audiophile friends as going through various stages, ranging from Newbie to Mature. It is not, of course, fully applicable to everyone, but it is amusing how well some folks fit into the 7 Stages of Audiophile Development.  

 

1. Baby Audiophile - buys lower cost gear, gets hooked on audiophile sound
    
2. Toddler Audiophile - buys more and higher level gear, usually with some suspicious and critical thinking
    
3. Pre-Adolescent Audiophile - buys some really expensive gear, starts to wonder if it makes sense, because does not really hear that much of a difference. Defends purchases with vigor because it cost an arm and a leg, looses all critical thinking
    
4. Adolescent Audiophile - Rebels, goes and buys pro gear …
    
5. Young adult Audiofile - Realizes the music is probably about as important as the gear, or that they are never going to be absolutely satisfied. Regains ability to think critically about audio gear
    
6. Adult Audiophile - Specializes in one area, computer audio, streaming, portable, vinyl, etc. Passionate, but also critical, keeps a hold of his wallet. 
    
7. Old Fart Audiophile - spends as little as possible, gleefully uses pro gear where appropriate, enjoys a lot of audiophile grade listening, snears at super expensive cables and secretly uses 12g lamp cord for his speakers. 

*This is purely a work of fiction, no resemblence to any person, living or dead is intended. Of course, some people fall way outside this scale.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

This reminds me of an old adage from my Air Force days...

 

When you are promoted to Major, they take away your voice.

 

When you are promoted to Lt. Colonel, they take away your brain.

 

When you are promoted to Colonel, they give you back your voice.

 

[new_media]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was so disappointed when I got my first CD player for Christmas and put in Tom Petty’s Full Moon Fever, this was the first CD I’d ever heard. The sound? Underwhelming to say the least. 

 

I had some decent sounding cassettes 😀

 

My first CD was Substance by New Order. Still have it and it still sounds pretty good. ツ

[fung0]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

But greed in its simplest form, is simply wanting more than you need. Who defines exactly how much someone needs? Society? Government? Church? Bible/Koran/Tao? A televangelist? 

 

I think we all want more than we need, and work to get that. In that sense, greed is nothing more than another motivation to work hard and succeed.

 

As you point out, your definition requires an omniscient judgment of 'need.' It is therefore prejudicial and tailor-made to be abused. Are Yemeni's being 'greedy' if they want more food than they need to stave off malnutrition? Waste the word 'greed' on that, and you leave yourself no label for the real thing.

 

What I call 'greed' is wanting more than you've got without regard for how much is available to share among all those with needs. That's the 'motivation' that leads inexorably to the mess Earth is in right now.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

This is a slight deviation off the subject, and NOT, NEVER meant to be disrespectful to anyone...  However, in the rock-hard professional audio/recording community (I am on the periphery only), there is a disrespectful term sometimes used when chortling about some of the misguided audio lovers who REALLY want to do the right thing, but have been misled in a very  very cruel way -- 'audiofool'.  Now, DO NOT take offense, because I had been an audiophile in the past -- but as a technically knowledgeable person, seldom (never) ventured into the insanely esoteric realm -- just the technically best that I could afford.

 

However, there is a big group (I don't know how large) of people who *love* audio, and want their experience to be as good as possible given their limitations.  It is sometimes best to have 'financial lmitations', common sense, and a bit of ACCURATE technical knowledge. There ARE profit mongers who are so much in love of taking advantage of the (affluent) audio lovers, that it is sickening. (This is similar to the MQA issue, and advocacy that is either misguided (term intended kindly by me) or misleading (intended unkindly by me.)

 

MQA seems to be a media/software variant on the general l$100K CD player theme:  How can we 'soak' people for their money?

 

These snake oil people are not stupid (usually), but seem to be willing to claim half-truths to vulnerable people.  I don't care if someone has lots of money to waste, but PLEASE I hope that those with the ability to waste spend their money in a way that it benefits more than their egos.  Get the reasonbly technical best equipment that you can, really DO THAT!!!  Get the best, not 'better' than the best!!!

 

If someone is planning to purchase something that is 'better than the best', or somehow 'elite' -- please tell them caveat emptor in the kindest way possible.  I truly feel bad for people who misspend their money, or the similar idea about schemes like MQA -- it is for the purpose of control and/or money -- it is not intended to benefit either the customer or the artist!!!

 

My two cents -- again...  And I did NOT mean to disrepect anyone, but rather to make a kind and supportive wakeup call.  I could make stronger emotional complaints about MQA, but I now suspect that the knowledgeable person, who doesn't have a specific financial/political interest has already been dissuaded (by others cogent comments and explanation.)  It (and other unnecessary complexities)  just aren't in the best interests of most people in the audio community.

 

John

Mr Dyson, your post should be required reading!

 

In my opinion, the wealthier "audio fools" are the easiest marks, and that is who the magazines and manufacturers mostly market to. And they do it well. They appeal to these buyers insecurity, both in their masculinity and their status. The rampant use of pseudo technical buzzwords are selected very carefully.

 

However, no amount of "information" will help these folks because I can tell you from first hand experience, they are the most musically illiterate bunch you will come across, and they want one thing, which has NOTHING to do with performance or value, and that is status. They go on audio forums and talk about how much they have spent on over priced junk and smugly bathe in the notion of exclusivity. 

 

Would shlemiel with a scintilla of sense pay for a DAC or preamp where 40% of the cost was allocated to the chassis, "milled form a solid billet of aero space  grade aluminum" (ha a marketing spiel if their ever was one!)...?

 

There was one recent fool i saw who spent $35K on a stand and 12K on a "stabilization" device for his turntable. And he owns under a 100 records. He also enjoys bragging about this the latest Ferrari he has added to his collection LOL.

 

Again, excellent, incredibly accurate post. 

 

Izzy

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, fung0 said:

 

As you point out, your definition requires an omniscient judgment of 'need.' It is therefore prejudicial and tailor-made to be abused. Are Yemeni's being 'greedy' if they want more food than they need to stave off malnutrition? Waste the word 'greed' on that, and you leave yourself no label for the real thing.

 

What I call 'greed' is wanting more than you've got without regard for how much is available to share among all those with needs. That's the 'motivation' that leads inexorably to the mess Earth is in right now.

 

That is an excellent post, and you ask a really good question. 

 

If I remember correctly, Yemin is still in a rather vicious civil war between Hadi's government and the Houthi movement? None of the armed forces seem to be going short of rations, on either side, and a ton of food aid is shipped there by dozens of organizations. Even a very brief search reveals there is much corruption, and food aid theft is at least one of the reasons why anyone there will go hungry.  ( This is from memory, I have not been following the developing events over there. )

 

To me, that suggest that the people do not have enough security, opportunity, and just plain peace to even accumulate enough of what they need. So wanting more of what they actually need is probably not greed. Not to my way of thinking at least. Yemen was a fairly rich country at one time, was it not?  What is the reason that is no longer true?

 

It seems to me that the two conflicting political / religious groups have a strong need for power over other people, and to be thought "right." They obviously do not have enough of what they want either, but I would call their attempts to gain it an expression of greed. An expression of the worst kind of greed in fact. 

 

I do not think any of this is really simple, and certainly you make some very good points. The problem I have is that the opposite of that definition lands smack dab in socialism. Being told how much I am worth, how much my contribution to society must be, and so on. This is the very antithesis of freedom and free will to me. 

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Just had had an amusing experience - received an "anonymous" email threatening me with havoc if I continued to "shill" for MQA, and that someone would totally ruin my online reputation.  

 

Then I log on here and see that someone named ""maxijazz is running through all my posts and disagreeing with them. Not that it particularly matters, or even that I care if someone disagrees with me. I am very liberatarian about that.  But it's funny!!  MQA will be taking over the world!!!  To Arms To Arms!!!!

 

 

Speaking of which, has anyone compared the 2L samples of "Innocence"  against the MQA file? Dang if the MQA file isn't smaller and sounds better too. It says it unfolds to this. I have not captured the output and ran it through an analyzer. Would someone please suggest what I will find when I do? 

 

Not challenging, but the correctness of any theory is the validity and accuracy of its predictions.  I think I know what I will see. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

When comparing music, slight (very slight) differences in mastering can make a huge difference.  I am sometimes dealing with 1/2dB or less during my tests...  It is amazing how much of a difference that a few 0.10dB can make.

 

Also, even though I have promised myself not to talk much about this -- there is a wonderful way of unfolding a lot of OLD material -- do a proper DolbyA decode on it.  It is NOT a small improvement, but is a MONSTEROUS improvement.  Properly processed ABBA actually sounds reasonably good (believe it or not), but of course not all albums.  Some do suck audio-wise.

 

A lot of people have been dealing with (and extolling the virtues of) undecoded DolbyA material for years (a big cause of the semi 'harsh' or flat sound from CDs), and not really complaining OTHER than making the gernal claim that analog is therefore better than digital.  Bad controls on experiments has encouraged a lot of mistaken beliefs (and in the case of analog vs. digital), misguided 'audio religions'.

 

In too many situations, there is NOT an even playing field.  It is very easy to make a minor tweak here or there, and material can sound a LOT better or worse.  I have been amazed by this. 1yr ago, I would have considered the claim about the differences as specious.  BUT THEY ARE REAL...

John

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Just had had an amusing experience - received an "anonymous" email threatening me with havoc if I continued to "shill" for MQA, and that someone would totally ruin my online reputation.  

That is unacceptable, no way around it.

 

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Speaking of which, has anyone compared the 2L samples of "Innocence"  against the MQA file? Dang if the MQA file isn't smaller and sounds better too. It says it unfolds to this. I have not captured the output and ran it through an analyzer. Would someone please suggest what I will find when I do? 

Is that track among the free samples they offer? As for your question, the MQA stream will first be decompressed to 88.2 kHz. The result will be close to whatever went into the compression stage of the encoder. If you have an MQA capable DAC, this will be further upsampled to some higher rate its chip can accept. This might be 352.8 kHz or something else. The number displayed by Roon is the sample rate of the original master. The decoding/rendering process is not required to produce this rate at any stage, and if it does, anything beyond 88.2 kHz is merely the result of upsampling. Any actual content above 44.1 kHz has been discarded by the encoder.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Properly processed ABBA actually sounds reasonably good (believe it or not)

Does it improve the lyrics too?

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

In reply to : John Dyson-"Properly processed ABBA actually sounds reasonably good (believe it or not")

QUOTE -Does it improve the lyrics too?

 

 John was talking about properly decoding Dolby encoded originals.

In this case, having checked out his linked to before and after versions, I would definitely agree with him.

[John Dyson]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 John was talking about properly decoding Dolby encoded originals.

In this case, having checked out his linked to before and after versions, I would definitely agree with him.

Thank you -- with some serious work, and some help from a significant audio professional -- the decoder quality is lightyears better yet.

 

The main reason why I use ABBA (other than as ear-candy) is that the mixed female vocals with a wall of sound really drives a fast gain control system totally bonkers.  It is wonderful (and tough) test material.  Easy stuff, like Carpenters, doesn't really test the software.  Carly Simon's recordings are kind of tough also.

 

A lot of undecoded material is available.  The Carpenters' album from HDtracks is apparently undecoded, for example.

 

I am NOT claiming that everything is encoded for sure, and the decoder sounds BAD (grainy, sometimes REALLY bad) on unencoded material.  The decoder (DHNRDS) will destroy the sound of unencoded material, but leaked DolbyA material (sometimes with a small amount of EQ) will produce a master quality result.   Apparently, some distributors have apparently believed that a shelf of -3,-5,-6dB at 3kHz/Q=0.707 is 'decoding' DolbyA material.  Not really, but that is what has happened to some old material that sounded kind of 'harsh' or didn' t have any 'depth.'  It  is sad indeed.

 

 

John

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

But greed in its simplest form, is simply wanting more than you need. Who defines exactly how much someone needs? Society? Government? Church? Bible/Koran/Tao? A televangelist? 

 

 You forgot to include some of the hard line Objective members in this forum who appear to be Anti Audiophile.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, John Dyson said:

  Easy stuff, like Carpenters, doesn't really test the software.  Carly Simon's recordings are kind of tough also.

 

A lot of undecoded material is available.  The Carpenters' album from HDtracks is apparently undecoded, for example.

 

 It would be interesting to hear some segments of the corrected versions vs. the non corrected versions if you get around to doing this.

 Can you name a specific Carly Simon recording that was undecoded ?

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 You forgot to include some of the hard line Objective members in this forum who appear to be Anti Audiophile.

 

I am hard line objective, but am pro-audiophile.  My attitude is to be protective.

 

Some people MIGHT be critical of some technical choices but never degrade a listening hobby.  In my case, I can be critical, but only against those who take advantage of others.  If I could, I'd like to protect those who are misled and taken for a lot of money.

There is NOTHING wrong with an expensive hobby -- but I really would like for people to really benefit if there is a lot of (or excess) money spent on something.

 

Enjoy the hobby -- no matter if it is the entire hobby, loving the toys, or just listening.  I lost my hobby -- I started trying to clean up a lot of old recordings, and it has been 4 yrs, 2yr  of them have been intense and grueling.  If I can do anything to help, I will do what I can -- and have proven it!!!  It would be terrible for the effort to have been lost -- I am hoping for the best possible quality to be available to the consumer, but there are so many ways for the 'greedy' to be parasites.

 

John

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 You forgot to include some of the hard line Objective members in this forum who appear to be Anti Audiophile.

Honestly that is pure nonsense....

[Ralf11]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Honestly that is pure nonsense....

 

yet, if you use the rotation from the Coriolis Force, it may come out correctly