MQA is Vaporware

[Tintinabulum]

Flower in the desert Paul.

[rando]

10 hours ago, Paul R said:

I am pretty certain that is because of the awful confrontational attitude, which, thank God is dying down a bit.  Of I am sure the regular crew of cronies will be around to deride this note. But they are far more interested in tooting their own horns than in making any kind of impact on the MQA issues. (Which are valid for the most part.) 

 

[Sonicularity]

I'm not holding my breath that team MQA will provide any real answers to the technical aspects of their proprietary, lossy format.  All of the responses I have seen are attacks on the messenger or the tone of the delivery, but never about the actual content of the message.  Is reverse psychology the new MQA game in play?  If anyone protests vehemently against MQA, they are protesting for MQA.  Got it. 

[mav52]

13 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

I'm not holding my breath that team MQA will provide any real answers to the technical aspects of their proprietary, lossy format.  All of the responses I have seen are attacks on the messenger or the tone of the delivery, but never about the actual content of the message.  Is reverse psychology the new MQA game in play?  If anyone protests vehemently against MQA, they are protesting for MQA.  Got it. 

To me, nothing has changed since the day MQA started. MQA and those that support it, even the secret invite only Facebook group do everything they can to dodge facts, talk up how great MQA sounds, they tell those that think MQA doesn't sound better tell the listener you are not listening correctly or you're dac is not good enough, or , or or,  and place their minds and mouths on auto-play.

[John Dyson]

10 minutes ago, mav52 said:

To me, nothing has changed since the day MQA started. MQA and those that support it, even the secret invite only Facebook group do everything they can to dodge facts, talk up how great MQA sounds, they tell those that think MQA doesn't sound better tell the listener you are not listening correctly or you're dac is not good enough, or , or or,  and place their minds and mouths on auto-play.

BY FAR, the limiting quality factor is the source material and how it is treated.  Once in a while, there is material good enough to benefit from super high quality.  The problem with MQA isn't really the inferior quality and inefficiency, but rather the proprietary and potential (likely) coercive aspects.

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

BY FAR, the limiting quality factor is the source material and how it is treated.  Once in a while, there is material good enough to benefit from super high quality.  The problem with MQA isn't really the inferior quality and inefficiency, but rather the proprietary and potential (likely) coercive aspects.

 

I am happier at being coerced if I very much enjoy the content/experience (e.g., iPhone for me personally, though I have no quarrel with anyone who doesn't want to feel restricted to their IMO very nice walled garden).

 

MQA does not spark joy (for me, at least).

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I am happier at being coerced if I very much enjoy the content/experience (e.g., iPhone for me personally, though I have no quarrel with anyone who doesn't want to feel restricted to their IMO very nice walled garden).

 

MQA does not spark joy (for me, at least).

I do admit that technical quality is not always the highest priority.  SO, even if MQA was better quality -- which it is not, the bad thing is the eventual negative control on access and various other kinds of licensing. Freedom to be able to enjoy the musical experience, and the quality of the musical experience are paramount.  Controls or limitations on the experience are downers.

 

My biggest motivation for the best possible quality is more related to the distraction from artifacts of poor quality.  A good example, is my project -- which is meant (and successfully does) remove some technical  distractions from material that is often mishandled in the distribution phase.

 

I do NOT speak of le fin beak type things -- but more like an obvious distraction -- too much bass, too little high end, distortion in the high end, compression artifacts, expansion problems, hiss (well --  until my 63yr old tinnitus), etc.

 

For most casual listening, and given the quality of most pre-recorded material  -- lossless 16bits is fine, and so is 44.1k (which I do not prefer)  for playback, but the worst problems are NOT in the lossless transport, but rather the source material (technical aspects/obvious production defects/bad performance/etc.)  SOMETIMES, there is really good quality material, and maybe the last/final bit of technical quality is helpful.

 

Of course, all things being equal, I think that we all do want the best quality that we can get (relative to our own perceptions.)

If using mp3 (or opus or any other lossy compression) at any bitrate is 'good enough', then there is little reason to worry much about the differences in the quality between MQA, 16/24bits, 44.1k/48k/72k/88k/96k/192k for playback.  Lossy is a strawman here -- but the quality differences between these schemes are more related to eccentricities and not so much absolute quality differences.  (Of course, given evertying else equal, 24 bits is better than 16bits, anything is better than MQA <no matter the technical quality>, 192k is better than 44.1k/etc.)

 

BTW -- I do have raw source material that totally blows away mp3 to where it is incredibly obvious that there is a loss of detail.  It isn't just a 'feeling' but the loss of detail is able to be specifically described.  (Mostly, it seems to me to be time resolution and a timing confusion of the high end.  Each instance can usually be heard clearly enough to describe.)

 

When casually listening, I don't usually hear the mp3 artifacts, but do generally prefer opus.   But, I sometimes do listen to material in sitautions where the loss of detail can be obvious.  16 bits at 44.1k can capture the detail in every example that I hear the mp3 defects.

 

I don't have golden-ears, because if I did, I couldn't distinguish technical quality very well -- my perception would be distorted by feelings.

 

John

[Jud]

I love language - "le fin beak"?

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

I love language - "le fin beak"?

A fine beak -- overly picky.

 

I might have gotten the spelling wrong ( a lot like coup de grace -- it is COOP de GRACE not COO de GRA, except by spelling instead of vocally.)

 

John

[Hugo9000]

The 'c' is voiced (like an 's') on 'grâce' in French, despite the constant mispronunciation in movies by English-speaking actors.  Perhaps people are confused by another word altogether, 'gras,' as in pâté de foie gras.  Honestly, I wish screenwriters would just avoid French phrases, as they end up making the actors look foolish rather than sophisticated or knowledgeable or whatever it is they're going for.

 

 

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

The 'c' is voiced (like an 's') on 'grâce' in French, despite the constant mispronunciation in movies by English-speaking actors.  Perhaps people are confused by another word altogether, 'gras,' as in pâté de foie gras.  Honestly, I wish screenwriters would just avoid French phrases, as they end up making the actors look foolish rather than sophisticated or knowledgeable or whatever it is they're going for.

 

 

My own use of French is foolish also -- it has been 30+yrs since I have had any significant exposure.  It has helped on a few business trips early in my career, but beyond that -- it is all a faded memory.  Brain is all filled up full of technical goo...

 

John

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

14 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

No disrespect intended, but what makes you think MQA is going to even read your questions? If they blew Chris off they way they did, I don't see where you, or pretty much anyone else in this forum save people like John Atkinson are going to get any response from them. The reason of course is simple- facts will not make any impression on MQA - the distribution of such will only help them. 

 

You do realize that the negative attention from here is being spin doctored into reasons the industry should go with MQA? Regardless of anything else, it will simply be used to encourage the industry to protect their IP. 

 

Perhaps, instead of heaping scorn, you should be cultivating polite relationships with people like John Atkinson and others. If that, is, folks here have not absolutely soured the relationship we used to enjoy with the industry. I sure as hell don't see people like Gordon Rankin,  or others who used to frequent around here weighing in with an opinion.

 

I am pretty certain that is because of the awful confrontational attitude, which, thank God is dying down a bit.  Of I am sure the regular crew of cronies will be around to deride this note. But they are far more interested in tooting their own horns than in making any kind of impact on the MQA issues. (Which are valid for the most part.) 

 

Perhaps you should present them Jud's summary, and then ask Chris to revise his presentation a bit and bring it completely up to date. Then start by distributing -> that <-. 

 

On the other hand, if you really want MQA to be the universal format for music distribution, just let people keep helping MQA out with the rants and raves and bad examples to use for the rest of the industry. (*sigh*) 

 

I guess that is my last input here - it is not worth my time to argue with people whose idea of rational discussion is exampled in this thread. Despite the fact I have developed great respect for some of the folks who are known to rant upon occasion. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

"I  guess that is my last input here.."

 

Is that a PROMISE?🤠

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

18 hours ago, new_media said:

Not sure when they started, but apparently ProStudioMasters has joined Onkyo Music in offering MQA alongside lossless hi-res. Would love to see some comparative sales figures on that.

 

https://www.prostudiomasters.com/album/page/31855

That is truly a shame. i have bought quite a few downloads from them. No more.😙

[The Computer Audiophile]

Would be nice to get an official comment from ProStudioMasters. 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Would be nice to get an official comment from ProStudioMasters. 

 

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

That is truly a shame. i have bought quite a few downloads from them. No more.😙

 

I too have purchased many downloads from ProStudioMasters in the past but no longer will moving forward so long as they support MQA.

 

I sent them a politely worded note explaining the reasons for my decision, and invited their reply if they wished to explain their support of MQA. They didn't. 🤔

[Shadders]

Hi,

Regarding Brexit, there are always scare stories on the disastrous consequences of Brexit - there were predictions of severe economic impact that never happened. The BBC News website always presents the calamity predictions and even reports Brexit is to blame when decisions were made before Brexit was voted on.

 

The BBC News technical areas never report on Windows 10 telemetry, or other aspects of severe privacy infringement.

 

Some of the politicians and critics of the EU have always referred to the problem that the EU is not for the people, for which it has always stated its function, but favours corporations.

 

So, when MQA slowly makes inroads into the mainstream music market, the BBC will NOT be challenging the scam, but since it favours corporations, it will support it. It is sad that the BBC whose remit is to "Inform, Educate and Entertain" fails dismally on so many fronts for the common man.

 

The Hifi press should be reporting MQA for exactly what it is - but they won't.

 

We cannot rely upon any of the media outlets to report accurately and in support open systems which allow freedom. So, forums and the internet are the only places to challenge MQA.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[sandyk]

16 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

When I stop laughing I’ll respond. But I actually have relationships with the MQA Ltd people and John Atkinson. Gordon Rankin and I talked on several occasions. That will be the starting point. I will sleep well tonight, thank you.

 

 As a great deal of money and potential income from MQA is involved here, you have a snow flake's chance in hell of delaying or stopping the widespread introduction of MQA.

You aren't Moses !

[Shadders]

33 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 As a great deal of money and potential income from MQA is involved here, you have a snow flake's chance in hell of delaying or stopping the widespread introduction of MQA.

You aren't Moses !

Hi sandyk,

Don't be so sure. The requirements for being Moses are as follows :

1. You must be Jewish.
2. You must be circumcised.
3. You must have a long stick with a curve/hook at the top end
4. You must have a stone tablet with 10 bullet points on it.
5. You must have a beard.

I reckon it is possible.

Regards,

Shadders.

[MikeyFresh]

40 minutes ago, sandyk said:

you have a snow flake's chance in hell of delaying or stopping the widespread introduction of MQA.

 

Thanks but most of us would rather not just bend over, drop our drawers, and take it. 

 

I for one will give it more than just the old college try. If we go down, we go down swinging.

 

When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor...

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi sandyk,

Don't be so sure. The requirements for being Moses are as follows :

1. You must be Jewish.
2. You must be circumcised.
3. You must have a long stick with a curve/hook at the top end
4. You must have a stone tablet with 10 bullet points on it.
5. You must have a beard.

I reckon it is possible.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

So is the possibility that the severe weather extremes world wide aren't  due to man made climate change, but are due to a normal cycle that will soon disappear  back to normal again.

 While I applaud the efforts from  Rt66indierock and others to try and prevent the widespread introduction of MQA, I believe that they are underestimating the resolve of it's proponents not just to avoid continuing financial losses, but make money from it.

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I believe that they are underestimating the resolve of it's proponents not just to avoid continuing financial losses, but make money from it.

 

I don't think that's been underestimated, however if one of the only little things I can do is inform MQA partners I will no longer do business with them, and LOTS of others follow suit, then perhaps we've contributed to further ongoing losses when those partner companies begin to bail out, and an eventual failure then ensues.

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

however if one of the only little things I can do is inform MQA partners I will no longer do business with them, and LOTS of others follow suit

 

  The only hope could be if somebody started a large online petition, with the introduction by a group of well known Industry figures detailing it's deficiencies.

They will never take much notice of individuals

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

My biggest motivation for the best possible quality is more related to the distraction from artifacts of poor quality.  A good example, is my project -- which is meant (and successfully does) remove some technical  distractions from material that is often mishandled in the distribution phase.

 

 John's efforts in this regard have resulted in tracks that I find sound markedly better than those of the same title from the RBCD layer of Carpenters Singles 1969-1981, and presumably the SACD layer either .

The improvements aren't subtle either.

[MikeyFresh]

23 minutes ago, sandyk said:

a group of well known Industry figures detailing it's deficiencies.

 

Thats already happened, for instance Linn, Benchmark, and Schiit Audio just to name a few.

 

Not that being a well-known industry figure should be the final arbiter of such things, it isn't.

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

What I find VERY disturbing is that that hundreds of MQA albums have appeared out of no where on PSM.

 

Many of them are albums that have been previously remastered, and sold as 24 bit downloads. They CLEARLY have been run through the MQA sausage maker. And in fact are now LOSSSY. A good example is the 24/96 Doors Studio Album virtual box set, done by original engineer Bruce Botnick circa 2009. There are numerous others. 😴