MQA is Vaporware

[Ralf11]

Paul, I am a scientist and audiophile.  I have no connection at all to MQA.  I oppose it because it adds nothing and because I don't like DRM.

 

I feel like I can ask that question because I am able to type, and the US Constitution guarantees free speech.

 

I felt motivated to ask that question because you consistently post in a manner suggestive of a person connected with MQA.

 

So let's hear it from you.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

I found this quote from Mr. Lee.

 

"I had an interesting conversation this afternoon with David Chesky. Much of it was off the record but one thing I can talk about stood out to me.

David has devised a test of his own 24/192k recordings (using reference ADCs and DACs from MSB). He can play both the master file non-MQA at 24/192 and then stream on HDMusicStreaming (his upcoming all-MQA streaming service) the same file unfolded at 24/192. Being super connected in the music biz, he then has invited experienced engineers, even those who don't like it. He says even the anti-MQA engineers cannot tell a difference between the master file and the MQA streamed 24/192 file.

If it's so close that experienced sound engineers cannot hear it, a lot of this discussion seems a bit academic."

 

I don't claim to be the sharpest Kosher knife in the drawer, but if they cannot hear a difference, what is the point of paying fees to MQA, buying MQA hardware, and adding another layer of processing>

 

I also find it hard to believe that professional engineers cannot hear a difference between 17/96 and 24/192.

 

It seems to me Mr. Lee personifies the Dunning-Kruger effect. 😅

[Rt66indierock]

34 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Steve,

 

Who are 7Digital's investors?

 

As of August 15, 2018 just under 52% are the following: Milton Asset Management, 27/7 Entertainment GmbH, City Financial Investment Company, Killik & Co, Goodmans Inc and Walker Crips. Have fun they are playing around with capital.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I found this quote from Mr. Lee.

 

"I had an interesting conversation this afternoon with David Chesky. Much of it was off the record but one thing I can talk about stood out to me.

David has devised a test of his own 24/192k recordings (using reference ADCs and DACs from MSB). He can play both the master file non-MQA at 24/192 and then stream on HDMusicStreaming (his upcoming all-MQA streaming service) the same file unfolded at 24/192. Being super connected in the music biz, he then has invited experienced engineers, even those who don't like it. He says even the anti-MQA engineers cannot tell a difference between the master file and the MQA streamed 24/192 file.

If it's so close that experienced sound engineers cannot hear it, a lot of this discussion seems a bit academic."

 

I don't claim to be the sharpest Kosher knife in the drawer, but if they cannot hear a difference, what is the point of paying fees to MQA, buying MQA hardware, and adding another layer of processing> It seems to me Mr. Lee personifies the Dunning-Kruger effect. 😅

 

So if the engineers cannot tell a difference, then how is MQA not audibly lossless?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So if the engineers cannot tell a difference, then how is MQA not audibly lossless?

Going back through this thread you have consistently said it is "Better". In that quote you claim they heard no difference. So you have two narratives, big surprise.

 

If there IS no difference, what is the point?  

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Going back through this thread you have consistently said it is "Better". In that quote you claim they heard no difference. So you contradict your self, big surprise.

 

If there IS no difference, what is the point?  

 

 

 

You didn't answer the question.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

You didn't answer the question.

You have two false narratives running.

 

Reading back, you have failed to answer hundreds of direct questions. You don't get that courtesy.

 

Sorry. 

[Paul R]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Paul, I am a scientist and audiophile.  I have no connection at all to MQA.  I oppose it because it adds nothing and because I don't like DRM.

OK.

 

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I feel like I can ask that question because I am able to type, and the US Constitution guarantees free speech.

The constitution does not, so far as I know, define free speech as the right to demand information from someone else. Obviously, you were not just personally interested, or you would have sent a PM. 

 

But I am an easy going guy, I will provide the information you wish in exchange for the information I wish. 

 

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I felt motivated to ask that question because you consistently post in a manner suggestive of a person connected with MQA.

 

My guess is that you are either motivated by something else, or your perceptions are filtered through a huge set of misconceptions or preconceptions. 

 

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

So let's hear it from you.

 

After you mate. 

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

The issues were not related to MQA.

 

So Norman didn't like their cut of the MQA spoils? 

 

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

David gave me some homework for the weekend

 

Hmm, how to reconfigure the ecosystem to better the Chesky's share of the MQA spoils?

 

So far the 1/1000 of a penny per streamed track that the labels have offered isn't appealing? Your counter offer is 1/100 of a penny per streamed track?

 

The labels may actually go for that, though they don't have the approval of the content creators, but they'll work that out on the back end with fancy accounting (or lack thereof).

 

Apple Music and Spotify are on the edge of their seats!

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

OK.

 

The constitution does not, so far as I know, define free speech as the right to demand information from someone else. Obviously, you were not just personally interested, or you would have sent a PM. 

 

But I am an easy going guy, I will provide the information you wish in exchange for the information I wish. 

 

 

My guess is that you are either motivated by something else, or your perceptions are filtered through a huge set of misconceptions or preconceptions. 

 

 

After you mate. 

 

 

I answered your questions, as you asked.

 

You had promised to answer your relation to MQA and it's monetary streams.  But you haven't.

 

So, ...

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I answered your questions, as you asked.

 

You had promised to answer your relation to MQA and it's monetary streams.  But you haven't.

 

So, ...

 

We all get lots of money from MQA.

 

Except you.

[MikeyFresh]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

We all get lots of money from MQA.

 

 

Wait, where's my check? You mean the consumers are also stakeholders in Lee's new ecosystem?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Wait, where's my check? You mean the consumers are also stakeholders in Lee's new ecosystem?

 

Didn't you hear? They're not only using the money they make to pay artists, they're going to buy every audiophile a pony.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

how is MQA not audibly lossless

 

So first it was simply lossless, as evidenced by a corporate logo having been created to that effect, and various journalists being fed that line of BS, but now it is just audibly lossless?

 

So we play the same subjective analysis confidence game, and that will suffice?

 

No actual response to the published measurements showing MQA is lossy, instead a group of fantasy land engineers are ushered into a David Chesky demo by way of his super-connected status, in which everyone concluded MQA is audibly lossless, and a good time was had by all?

 

Those same engineers rejected the measurements, and decided the David Chesky demo was so convincing that they were totally on-board with MQA moving forward, is that what your off the record conversation consisted of?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

So first it was simply lossless, as evidenced by a corporate logo having been created to that effect, and various journalists being fed that line of BS, but now it is just audibly lossless?

 

 Seems that they fed David Chesky a few "porkies" too !

[Ralf11]

12 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

So first it was simply lossless, as evidenced by a corporate logo having been created to that effect, and various journalists being fed that line of BS, but now it is just audibly lossless?

 

So we play the same subjective analysis confidence game, and that will suffice?

 

No actual response to the published measurements showing MQA is lossy, instead a group of fantasy land engineers is ushered into a David Chesky demo by way of his super-connected status, in which everyone concluded MQA is audibly lossless, and a good time was had by all?

 

pretty soon, it will be thoughtably lossless

[Paul R]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I answered your questions, as you asked.

 

You had promised to answer your relation to MQA and it's monetary streams.  But you haven't.

 

So, ...

Let us be a little more precise then. There are about 6.9 million engineers and scientists in the U.S. Which one exactly are you? As in what is your real name?

Which I am sure, is exactly what you understood I asked. Especially so as you are a scientist and supposedly, well trained in logical and critical thinking.

 

I have no problem answering this question again - publicly -  none at all. But I do not believe you have the right to demand an answer. 

As I said before, I will be glad to answer it again, but only in public trade for the information I asked from you. 

 

Anyone else wishes to know, they can PM or provide the same information here in public. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Anyone else wishes to know

 

Don't flatter yourself, no one actually cares.

 

You do not have any right to demand someone publicly identify themself to you, and to what end? So that you can then be the arbiter of how much they know, or what their credentials suggest to you as the value of their posts on this forum.

 

Should he also submit his high school and college transcripts to you for review/vetting?

[Ralf11]

He isn't capable of evaluating them anyway.

 

The question about financial connections ot any MQA revenue streams is appropriate in this thread, but he doesn't seem to be a man of his word, and is only here to troll if not to shill, as several people have noticed.

 

 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

David Chesky on MQA CD-

 

https://www.psaudio.com/article/an-interview-with-david-chesky/

 

"We’re coming out with a new thing.  We’re coming out with MQA compact discs.  That’s what we’re working on today.  That’s why I was an hour late in calling you; we’re trying to figure this stuff out.  Anyway, this can be very cool because it’ll be basically a CD red book on a normal CD player, but if you plug your CD player into a DAC that has MQ 8, it’ll come out as 176(kHz), 17-bit.  So, it’ll sell for the same price as a CD, I think.  It’s not up to a regular 192 (kHz), 24 bit, but it’s pretty cool to have that on a CD."

 

and then he states, falsely:

 

 "wait a minute, I just found out something.  So, the MQA CD will be full 24 bit."

 

 

 

Isn't it remarkable that an audio engineer could be so easily fooled? I mean seriously...

 

To not see that true 24-bit high samplerate resolution stuffed into a "compatible" 16/44 carrier is simply fantasy should be obvious. I simply cannot believe Chesky can't see thru this. If he truly believed that, his understanding of digital is rather worrisome. Alternatively, he may have such low regard of audiophiles that he thinks he can say these things and believes audiophile would just swallow the claims with no questions asked!

 

Either way, this doesn't look good...

[firedog]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Would be nice to get an official comment from ProStudioMasters. 

And I just noticed this: https://www.prostudiomasters.com/?utm_source=prostudiomasters&utm_campaign=db2b15ffed-20190322-us_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3c6a0cab26-db2b15ffed-71939157&mc_cid=db2b15ffed&mc_eid=5e69fe14d3#x

 

Tracks 1-24 – contains material which has been processed by a perceptual audio coding algorithm

What the **** does that mean? It doesn't list MQA as a format.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So if the engineers cannot tell a difference, then how is MQA not audibly lossless?

Really, Lee? You've claimed up and down that the sound is superior and claimed that's one of the reasons we should be in favor. The McGill study showed people had no preference for  it. Now Chesky has shown the same. Yet this is somehow supposed to mean MQA is a good thing?
All it shows is that it has no reason to exist and is just a proprietary format deployed in order to wall off the "ecosystem" and become a format for obtaining monopoly type rents on hires music files.

 

No superiority in SQ=no reason for it or it's "ecosystem" to exist. It brings only costs, and no benefit, to consumers.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

but he doesn't seem to be a man of his word, and is only here to troll if not to shill, as several people have noticed.

 

 Paul is more well known by longer term members and has way more credibility among the senior and longer term members than you will ever have.

 Unlike you, he also comes from a substantial technical background in the Computer and Systems areas.

[gdpr]

How can we be sure that we do not receive an 'mqa'-ed download when buying a regular flac (or aiff/wav) album?

Anybody in the house capable / interested to develop a small app(lication) for that?

Long time ago I was using 'flactest' utility to check ripped tracks. As mqa is wrapped in flac, this will not be the one, but it gives an idea what I am asking here.

Dirk

[Paul R]

58 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Paul is more well known by longer term members and has way more credibility among the senior and longer term members than you will ever have.

 Unlike you, he also comes from a substantial technical background in the Computer and Systems areas.

 

Thanks Alex, I appreciate the pat on the back. But it isn't a popularity contest.  

 

Mostly, it is people like this Raf11 person,  deciding they can safely bully people with outrageous and untrue insinuations behind an anonymous ID. Or shout a lie long enough and hard enough that people start to agree just to get them to shut up. Old style propaganda techniques dusted off and refreshed for the internet. Companies try doing the same thing as well. As witness MQA at RMAF. 

 

Fortunately, when you call them out they rarely are brave enough to put their name behind their opinions. Any of us who had kids go through college on a debating team can easily recognize those kinds of tactics.  

 

That isn't true of everyone of course, but it is a problem here. 

 

And though none of us really like it, it is one of the (very few) valid points the MQA people made. They didn't like being "attacked" by a nameless person on the internet. Not that they were really attacked by Archimago, but I can see how they might have felt so.