MQA is Vaporware

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

@Lee Scoggins, I feel you are being highly disingenuous here. You write that you've ignored the technical points because you are "still researching" and "don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides." But that's not actually true, because your "Why MQA is good business" arguments have been based on an underlying assertion - often implicit, but sometimes explicit - about the technical benefits of MQA.

 

As @firedog, I, and numerous others have pointed out repeatedly, you're not actually ignoring the technical issues and questions about MQA. Rather, you're ignoring only the technical objections, and you repeat the claimed technical benefits claimed in MQA's PR materials.

 

The reason this is a problem is that your parroting of MQA's "the tech is just fine, nothing to see here folks" line allows you to equate what's good for MQA's business model with what's good for music consumers concerned about high quality sound. Your comments have made this equation over and over and over, and it's been pointed out to you over and over and over - and still you repeat the same conflation.

 

I find that behavior, and your apparent refusal to even acknowledge it let alone modify it, troubling. I'm all for free speech, but if you truly "don't wish to comment" until you've researched the technical issues, then how about not commenting in this thread until you've.... researched the technical issues?

Translations: Scoggins is essentially a troll. I used the word disingenuous here to describe his conduct at least a dozen times and it is dead accurate. So thanks for being on board with that.

[Fair Hedon]

3 hours ago, Siltech817 said:

 

Translation: closed proprietary format requiring $$$ new licensing at every stage, a loss of consumer choice and control, and DRM.

So great motivators on the business side you describe, but horrible turn-offs for consumers considering the zero value proposition the above entails.

With no redeeming sonic value, no technical merits, MQA very much a solution in search of a problem, you have a very curious take on all of this, it can be summed up as anti-consumer and pro record label/business. 

Oh, right... you are still researching the technical aspects.

Here, you elegantly summed up all the valid arguments why MQA should be thrown into the trash heap..a beautiful synopsis of what the most luminary anti MQA voices have been saying since day one...including the late, great Charlie Hansen, and posters mansr, soxr, and many others as well, Andreas Koch, Brian Lucey, the Schiit guys, Benchmark Media, Linn, Byrston, and Soundstage's Doug S. Apologies to anyone I left out.

 

And amazingly, the pro MQA punching bags still keeping around with their factless and illogical hype to keep getting virtually smashed in the face.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

36 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Colorful word choices. Not as colorful as last week's anal rape metaphor (which I personally found offputting), but still another post that seems just a touch histrionic. coupled with a few of your more hyperbolic and vitriolic posts (examples can easily be supplied) , I wonder if you are undermining your credibility a little?

 

While it is an unfair characterization of CA as a whole, it doesn't take too many heavy-handed posts in a thread to leave some with the impression of a "snake pit". IMO.

Nothing wrong with a snake pit. Serves a very important purpose..it is where the MQA rodents get tossed so they can be be eviscerated. I especially like when the snakes lick their chops in satisfaction and spit out the bones they can't digest.

[Fair Hedon]

23 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

Alternatively, it's a place where snakes can wriggle around and chase their tails without bothering anyone else.  I think you also misunderstand serpentine digestion, they tend to swallow things whole...

Yes, snakes digest their prey whole. But I could not resist, for dramatic effect...throwing in the spitting out the bones scenario...i

 

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

So @vortecjr is this why the ultraRendu upsamples non--MQA files when MQA unfolding is enabled?  When I asked previously why you do this, you simply said 'it works better that way'.

Easy solution..make sure MQA unfolding is not engaged. It never will be on my unit if I decide to upgrade the firmware.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

Yes, I've already said that I would do that.  I don't want my non-MQA files upsampled with an unknown filter.  

Agreed, Nobody should ever want that..I don't MQA within 10,000 Kilometers of my audio files.

 

The sooner it fades into oblivion we can get ready for the next fraud to be perpetrated by an audio charlatan.

[Fair Hedon]

I think it's important to keep reminding people that if you don't stream Tidal, MQA is of no consequence. Even as designers start incorporating "MQA style" filters in their products, as long as they are defeatable, it is all all good.

 

It will no different than some of those DACs that come equipped with numerous user selectable filters, of which most people end up leaving on the default. I have had DACs with selectable filters and after a week i just could not be bothered.

[Fair Hedon]

NAMM 2018: PMC partners with Capitol Studios to demo Hi-Res audio

 

"The main technology driver behind Hi-Res Audio is MQA (Master Quality Authenticated), which claims to bring higher quality sound to consumers without sacrificing portability and ease of streaming."

?????

 

[Fair Hedon]

8 hours ago, FredericV said:

MQA is not highres (only 15~17 bits after unfolding) and not the master (MQA completely messes up the ultrasonics, adds aliasing, adds higher noise floor, and alters the soundstage because of leaky minimum phase upsampling which does not have correct phase).

How can they call this high-res?

Of course it is not hirez, and the audacity of this report to claim MQA and Hirez are one and the same....I see a new strategy developing here for them....

[Fair Hedon]

14 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Very interesting that Hoffman himself (no doubt receiving a TON of PMs from Scoggins) made a statement that's basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

And having spent years reading the forums over there, I can say with confidence that once you've lost Metralla (one of the original forum members from 2002), you're done.  And it sure looks like even he is not impressed with Scoggins' MQA lovefest.

 

Scoggins has gone so far to suggest that cable skeptics are not qualified to evaluate MQA because, well, if they can't hear the increase in sound quality that happens when high end interconnects or power cables are used, they certainly won't hear the awesome benefits of MQA.

 

I really don't think Scoggins was expecting this level of push back on what he considered a "friendly" forum (Hoffman).  And the fact that all those critical posts about MQA are still there and threads are not locked or vanished tells me that Hoffman has decided to let MQA face withering fire.

Let me correct you.......STEREOPHILE, TAS, and Uncle Bob did not expect this level of push back..

 

They thought they were going to spoon feed MQA to all their little fans who see them as a voice of authority.

 

Guess how that turned out.

[Fair Hedon]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Just saw this quote from Lee at his Hoffman forum thread:

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/my-new-article-series-on-mqa.723574/page-2#post-17874636

 

and he wonders why we don't take his "investigative journalism" seriously....

Again the term disingenuous comes to mind...It is about time he ends the charade that he is not somehow part of

the MQA cabal with a vested interest in it succeeding. Whether trolling for consulting work, or just getting closer

to "Bob's" inner circle.

 

[Fair Hedon]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You haven’t seen the MQA certified cables yet?

 

:~)

You laugh?  There are MQA CDs in Japan..and even talk of...MQA vinyl!

[Fair Hedon]

39 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Yep! I'm the one he's responding to there, and I replied to his query with the evidence he demanded, linking and quoting both Stereophile and Stuart himself admitting that MQA is lossy. To the best of my knowledge, @Lee Scoggins did not reply directly to that evidence or acknowledge it in any way. (Lee, if I am mistaken about that, please point us to the comment you made at the Hoffman forums where you do acknowledge that MQA is lossy.)

Again, he continues with the same strategy...tone deaf..ignoring facts pointed out on numerous occasions...

 

right out of the Stereophile playbock..to this day...Jim Austin is Stereophile's Scoggins.

[Fair Hedon]

24 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I wrote to What Hifi a few days ago to notify them that MQA is lossy - as their article stated it was lossless. No response so far, and no change to the article.

Regards,

Shadders.

Why let facts get in the way of market making and trolling for ad dollars?

[Fair Hedon]

9 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

You shouldn't have said his name... he just popped up again at SH.

In cases like this it's usually best to let sleeping dogs lie... Nothing annoys such people more than being ignored.

Yes, and his MQA Marketing is no so over the top is borders on absurdity...and his defense of anything or anyone related to MQA is laughable..."Meridian may not be losing money globally...". "Stuart is has written peer reviewed papers", "Audio Origami is so elegant"....go ahead, have a laugh.

[Fair Hedon]

You guys are gonna love this...

 

perhaps the most absurd excrement Scoggie has posted yet...

 

"4. My research is showing that the MQA encoder is perfectly lossless in terms of encoding a 24/192 and bringing it back. The reason that some feel it is lossless, I believe, is that the MQA encoder is focused on that magic triangle where all the spectral content of the music is. Because it is a different way of encoding compared to traditional PCM encoding, there is a bit of apples to oranges going on here in terms of the comparison to traditional PCM."

 

"...anyone who has been at these major MQA demos knows that most people easily heard the difference. The LAAS demo was near unanimous from people in the room after Peter played his recordings in MQA. The MQA file was obvious in its clarity and extra presence. It wasn't even close.

Please stop repeating this lie that no one has heard an improvement from MQA. It's simply not true. "

 

UN-real.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes a good place to post.  People who might post facts about MQA or real data contrary to the narrative will get banned.  So definitely a safe MQA haven. 

He has gone crazy. He is literally tell one lie after another there now.  Complete fabrications. He must really be at end game.

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Oh, I don't know. The thread at the Hoffman forums has become quite a lot of fun too. 

 

(But yes of course, I agree that the collective technical knowledge here is quite valuable in these kinds of discussions.)

 

It's hard not to come to the conclusion that @Lee Scoggins has found the soil here rather arid (after all, it's a lot tougher here to call folks liars and claim their arguments "have no substance") and is shifting to the Hoffman forums in hopes of finding greener pastures.

 

Despite it all, I still am finding the threads interesting and informative - debate sharpens arguments and helps reveal gaps and contradictions.

The only problem is that when parties repeatedly ignore established facts...over and over and over, and engage in disingenuous discussions, you really get no where.

 

Scoggins as of TODAY, still is calling MQA lossless. As of TODAY, he claims it produces content up to 192 kHz.

 

As of TODAY, he denies there is any DRM. 

 

[Fair Hedon]

Scoggins is now being protected because he is generating clicks. 27,000 + views on his thread.

[Fair Hedon]

6 minutes ago, Fluffytime said:

Par for the course over on Daddy Hoofmans vanity forum.

 

He's hoping to get another freebie, this time an MQA DAC.

He has one already...the PS Audio DirectStream.

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Oh how I miss stereocentral.tv!!!

Scoggie got Daddy Hoffman to ban me. He could not take the heat.

 

So telling lies, trolling, and fabricating information out of thin air is ok...but challenging that is not.

 

Hmmm..

 

Maybe it was because I asked Daddy Hoffman if he had been given an MQA demo in a mastering studio....

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, Dr Tone said:

Obviously Lee has ran out of names to drop and can only support one forum now.

 

His latest posts are trying to straighten out everyone on the downsampling upsampling "myth".  To his knowledge the second unfold is recovering content > 96kHz and there is no downsampling on MQA creation.

MQA is a fantasy, so it is no surprise he relies on magical thinking.

 

He got his buddy Uncle Steve personally involved in his thread...curious....have not seen that before.

[Fair Hedon]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm willing to bet it has more to do with your use of the english language :~)

It could be that....but I also think a BS artist does not like a BS Assassin...

 

Cheers!

[Fair Hedon]

28 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

The culture over there is different.  Rest assured that Scoggins was burying Hoffman in PMs regarding that quasi-sponsored MQA thread.  I'm sure he got Hoffman to give you the boot by suggesting you were making Hoffman's forum look unfriendly to vendors.

 

The reason Hoffman seems to be agnostic about MQA is there's no free gear in it for him.

 

 

Yes, but the PS Audio DAC he has on "long term loan" now does MQA, correct?

[Fair Hedon]

Lee Scoggins, today:

 

"DRM has not been implemented for MQA and there is a question as to whether we can hear the lossy parts."