MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Ah, the peanut gallery heard from. No, Crenca, there is no product placement at Stereophile any more than there is at Audiophile Style. And to respond to Mr. Slapowitz's posting, I think that to report whether or not it decodes MQA data is a relevant fact with a streaming product. Of more interest, however, is something that both Paul Miller and I reported on in our reviews, which is that the Naim restricts the bandwidth with 2Fs and 4Fs data.

 

BTW, if you compare the URL of the HiFi News review with that of Stereophile's - https://www.stereophile.com/content/naim-nd5-xs-2-media-player - you will see that they are very similar. This is because we have migrated the Hi-Fi News site on to our platform and are actually administering it for our English sister magazine.

 

John Atkinson

Editor (for 3 more days), Stereophile

 

Mr. Atikinson, I disagree whole heartedly with your assertion that the consumer needs to know a streamer does not decode a fake, lossy format. Your boss, Mr. Miller certainly does not believe so.

 

I do like the streamlined web interfaces. Looks good.😎

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The music labels are part owners of MQA. Part of the licence fees paid by the hardware manufacturers thus goes to them. Post edited to clarify.

I agree that is part of the whole picture -- it is pretty clear that it is all about the Benjamins...   Another revenue stream isn't all bad for the record labels, along with a bit of a siphon for the MQA license patent holders.   Transferring more 'Benjamins' from the music lover to the intellectual property owners (without increasing the quality or quantity) is all bad for the music lover/consumer.

There is ZERO upside to MQA for the consumer.  There is even some upside for the propagandists (whoever they might be.)

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

In fact, I DO want to know a digital front end does NOT decode MQA so it CAN be considered for purchase...because if if is "infected" with MQA, it is off the buy list.😍

[mav52]

13 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I disagree whole heartedly with your assertion that the consumer needs to know a streamer does not decode a fake, lossy forma

 

Maybe the reviewer didn't mention any ya or nah about MQA is because Naim doesn't mentioned it in their overview or specs on the device. Pretty simple, if its not in the specs, its not there why write about something for nothing. 

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

And we don't have more expensive DACs being sold on the promise that they'll get you better sound quality right now?

 

 

It's important to remember Jud that what you refer to is not DRM, whereas that which mansr is referring to by (the very design of MQA (as a digital software product) is DRM.  

[Hugo9000]

Isn't there a "thing" about music "mastered for iTunes"?  Perhaps reviewers should be listening to those lossy Apple files whenever they test new gear for their magazines and webzines.  Perhaps Apple is onto something with their special mastering haha!  It's actually more likely from that company, given their history of some quality products and that they can afford a few quality employees on the staff with the small profits (lol) they've earned over the years.  Compared to Meridian/MQA with their lossy format and company history...

 

Maybe the latest Ogg Vorbis lossy encoding happens upon some spectacular euphony that magically "corrects" for some "inherent flaw" in digital recordings.  Maybe it's not correcting for "ADC effects," but what if it "corrects" for the harm all the miles of polluted mains current before the recording studio have wreaked!  All that awful non-audiophile wiring!  All those horrid non-audiophile power supplies in recording studios!  haha!

 

What I'd really like to see is for reviewers to note all the DACs and devices incorporating DACs that fail to have normal HDMI inputs to take multichannel audio from Blu-ray players.  Other than receivers from the major manufacturers, this seems to be lacking in the majority of devices.  That's actually a useful feature, between Blu-ray players, DVD players, and computers with HDMI outputs.  It seems that any "audiophile" device that has what appears to be an HDMI input is simply using it as an interface for I²S.  There is a small unit that was reviewed on ASR the other day with true HDMI inputs, but I can't think of any others (outside of the AVRs I already mentioned from Denon and the other major manufacturers).  Considering how many digital devices, including computers, use HDMI output, it seems to me that an omission of that as an input is a bigger omission than one less lossy format.  

 

 

 

P.S.  I don't personally want any lossy formats, and I don't let myself worry about all the miles of wiring from power plants to our homes, nor the non-audiophile cables used in most studios.  lol  But I do think that Apple could have marketed their "mastered for iTunes" thing with false claims if they'd wanted.  But they seem to have more integrity than some other companies, at least in regard to claims made.  Or perhaps they lacked the imagination. lol

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

True enough, but I seriously doubt with the number of high end DACs sold that this would even pay for the pool at a music company VP's vacation home in Barbados.

 

A better play would be to try to get it into AV receivers and especially phones, but good luck convincing consumers they need it either of those places.

 

Anyone have a clue as to the number of high end DAC's sold?  Choose a number (somewhat arbitrary of course), say any DAC abovwe $1k, or $2K (what I would choose), or $5k.  How many of these things are sold each year globally, nationally?

[mansr]

If a reviewed device supports MQA, mentioning this is of course not a problem. The problem when the reviewer spends half a page or more praising the superior sound of MQA as though it were the second coming of Christ or, conversely, laments the lack of MQA support, where this is the case, practically throwing the device on the scrap heap because of it.

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

That that is simply a dystopian view that will never come to pass. It has been tried time and time and time again. Always failed, always will. 

That’s because there are simply too many people who don’t care about music or audio or audio gear the way audiophiles do. 

 

But audiophiles in general have more higher income and more discretionary income to spend.  They will always represent a lucrative and high profit margin market. Save for automobiles and art collectors, few groups spend as much money on non essentials as audiophiles do.

 

That in fact, is the only leverage that audiophiles have in this fight period. And with the bad attitude you and others present to the rest of the world, you are gonna loose.

Hi,

It may be a dystopian view, but it already exists with DVD and Blu-Ray video - you cannot implement the decoding from open source libraries and label your product as a decoder. You have to pay DTS and Dolby significant sums of money to badge the product as a decoder of their audio streams. The same for MQA - if MQA becomes the only format, how many small businesses could afford the licence costs ? How many DIY people could afford the costs etc., if DRM is invoked ?

 

Many people like high fidelity - you do not have to be rich to enjoy sound reproduction, since it is all open standards. You have made quite a few assumptions on what peoples income is.

 

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

You assumed a lot there.  “Beer money” is slang for insignificant discretionary funds. Of course that is different for everyone, but it is stupid to assume it says anything about how I or anyone else view people in general.  If someone one can not afford a beer, then choosing to spend the price of a beer on a CD is stupid. If they can afford a beer, then choosing to buy the CD instead of a beer is something also.

 

Probably a wise choice. At least you won’t just literally piss away the cost of the CD. YMMV. 

 

“Beer money” to *me*, is an LP or CD find at the thrift shop for $1. Or a box of CDs or albums at a garage sale for $5. Or indeed, about the cost of a beer. 

 

In audiophile terms, Nobody *needs* oh, $40,000 speakers driven by $30,000 amps, connected by $20,000 cables, driven by a source which is a $15,000 DAC, connected to a $25/month streaming music service. But if someone wants that, and can afford it, more power to ‘em. If they feel they must have it or they can’t enjoy music any longer, then that is what we call a first world problem 

 

That kind of stuff is not beer money to me, but it is to someone else. Else they would use it to put a couple kids through college.  But that crowd is going to be willing to pay for Non-MQA, and the market will service them. MQA will never be that dystopian future some here fear; there just is far too much money to be made. So fhe dystopian future is just scare tactics, and provides excitement for some.

 

Another way of saying that? People who choose audio and music as their hobby are far from stupid, and as a group command outsized financial resources in relation to their population size. 

 

Me personally? Heck  $2k for a turntable is an unjustifiable expense for *me*, save there is still enough cheap old vinyl out there to satisfy my music collecting hobby. without spending  more than I can afford. In other words, $70 for a 180g pressing of an album might be beer money for someone else, just not for me. 

 

Besides, when the hipsters tire of vinyl and move on, all those 180g pressings will be rich pickings at flea markets and thrift stores. Digitizing all those finds is a ton of fun and very rewarding too.

 

None of that, or my existing digital collection of about 4000 albums, or years worth of recordings I made and still have to digitize, will ever be locked in by a DAC that requires MQA to sound good. You guys do not seem to realize that. Nor will Non-MQA new releases ever stop being available. At the worst DACs are not that hard to build in a garage. 

You seem to think that everyone has money. They do not. Here in the UK - i should further refine the statement - 1 million households use food banks - their use statistics are based on households. There are reports of kids going to school without breakfast, and the teachers feeding them. Also reports of teachers buying clothes for some.

 

You have made too many assumptions that are not reflecting the reality of people and their circumstances - who like music - i was going to reply to each point, but then you seem to be adamant that only people with disposable income like high fidelity music reproduction. It would be arguing a lot, for nothing. Good luck.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

17 minutes ago, mav52 said:

 

Maybe the reviewer didn't mention any ya or nah about MQA is because Naim doesn't mentioned it in their overview or specs on the device. Pretty simple, if its not in the specs, its not there why write about something for nothing. 

..Cept...Art Dudley did mention it..and it ain't in no spec sheet...hmmm

[Rt66indierock]

8 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Isn't there a "thing" about music "mastered for iTunes"?  Perhaps reviewers should be listening to those lossy Apple files whenever they test new gear for their magazines and webzines.  Perhaps Apple is onto something with their special mastering haha!  It's actually more likely from that company, given their history of some quality products and that they can afford a few quality employees on the staff with the small profits (lol) they've earned over the years.  Compared to Meridian/MQA with their lossy format and company history...

 

Maybe the latest Ogg Vorbis lossy encoding happens upon some spectacular euphony that magically "corrects" for some "inherent flaw" in digital recordings.  Maybe it's not correcting for ADC effects, but what if it "corrects" for the harm all the miles of polluted mains current before the recording studio have wreaked!  All that awful non-audiophile wiring!  All those horrid non-audiophile power supplies in recording studios!  haha!

 

What I'd really like to see is for reviewers to note all the DACs and devices incorporating DACs that fail to have normal HDMI inputs to take multichannel audio from Blu-ray players.  Other than receivers from the major manufacturers, this seems to be lacking in the majority of devices.  That's actually a useful feature, between Blu-ray players, DVD players, and computers with HDMI outputs.  It seems that any "audiophile" device that has what appears to be an HDMI input is simply using it as an interface for I²S.  There is a small unit that was reviewed on ASR the other day with true HDMI inputs, but I can't think of any others (outside of the AVRs I already mentioned from Denon and the other major manufacturers).  Considering how many digital devices, including computers, use HDMI output, it seems to me that an omission of that as an input is a bigger omission than one less lossy format.  

 

 

 

P.S.  I don't personally want any lossy formats, and I don't let myself worry about all the miles of wiring from power plants to our homes, nor the non-audiophile cables used in most studios.  lol  But I do think that Apple could have marketed their "mastered for iTunes" thing with false claims if they'd wanted.  But they seem to have more integrity than some other companies, at least in regard to claims made.  Or perhaps they lacked the imagination. lol

 

I thought mastered for iTunes meant it was mastered specifically for their format.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

If a reviewed device supports MQA, mentioning this is of course not a problem. The problem when the reviewer spends half a page or more praising the superior sound of MQA as though it were the second coming of Christ or, conversely, laments the lack of MQA support, where this is the case, practically throwing the device on the scrap heap because of it.

Precisely sir.😎

[Hugo9000]

10 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I thought mastered for iTunes meant it was mastered specifically for their format.

They actually outline some good practices.  I have a pdf link from Apple that goes into their marketing spiel about it.  At any rate, if lossy MQA can possibly/sometimes/always/never "improve" the sound of a master, it's theoretically possible that Apple's encoders are doing something even better haha!  I'd wager that Apple's batch encoders are of infinitely superior quality than the cloud process the labels are using for MQA.  Apple certainly has the money and years of hiring technical experts in fields applicable to their work.  (In case anyone cares, I have no affiliation of any kind with Apple or anyone who ever worked at Apple or anything else official or unofficial lol.  I also don't own any Apple products, the only one I ever owned was a 3rd gen iPod Nano that my previous boss gave me for Christmas many years ago.  It was lovely and worked perfectly, and still might work if I could find where I put it.)

 

 

https://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf

[crenca]

4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Ah, the peanut gallery heard from. No, Crenca, there is no product placement at Stereophile any more than there is at Audiophile Style. And to respond to Mr. Slapowitz's posting, I think that to report whether or not it decodes MQA data is a relevant fact with a streaming product. Of more interest, however, is something that both Paul Miller and I reported on in our reviews, which is that the Naim restricts the bandwidth with 2Fs and 4Fs data.

 

BTW, if you compare the URL of the HiFi News review with that of Stereophile's - https://www.stereophile.com/content/naim-nd5-xs-2-media-player - you will see that they are very similar. This is because we have migrated the Hi-Fi News site on to our platform and are actually administering it for our English sister magazine.

 

John Atkinson

Editor (for 3 more days), Stereophile

 

 

Ah, "peanut gallery".  Your use of this phrase is informative.  Since you are a proper English gentleman I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not have in mind the racialist undertones of this quip.  Still, we audiophiles, consumers, music lovers, and readers of your magazine are a kind of necessary evil for you.  We are the product you sell to your advertisers, nothing more and nothing less.  When we dare ask questions of a product like MQA well, that's just not convenient for you and your customers.  Were supposed to slink back into the cheap seats and keep our mouth shut - mind our place.  You and your customers are the ones on stage, and if the lines say MQA is "birth of a new world" great then that is what we are supposed to hear.

 

I also noticed our two moral busybodies, @Paul Rand @christopher3393gave you a thumbs up...I think they are in America and should be more familiar with such a phrase...I guess when your spend so much time wagging your finger your bound to slip up 😋

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

14 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

..Cept...Art Dudley did mention it..and it ain't in no spec sheet...hmmm

 

That was rather the whole point being made then, that Stereophile went out of their way to mention the lack of MQA decoding as a supposed deficit both in the specs and again in the listening, while the U.K. review (properly) makes no mention of MQA at all.

 

Seems especially suspect given the writer then magically prefers the 24/48 MQA version of a track to a 24/96 PCM version despite no actual MQA decoding taking place on the former, not even the first unfold, as that file was played from a USB thumb drive. Ridiculous (or possibly the intentional selection of a track whose 24/96 mastering is not great).

 

 

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

It's important to remember Jud that what you refer to is not DRM, whereas that which mansr is referring to by (the very design of MQA (as a digital software product) is DRM.  

 

Yes, that's why I mentioned piracy, or to put it another way, music companies treating customers like thieves and wondering why they don't get more sales.

[Shadders]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

MQA isn't needed for this.  The Big 3 have a monopoly position in Redbook and hi res downloads for the most popular music right now.  What's the price of a typical 24/44.1 download at HD Tracks?  About $17.98, right?  That isn't "beer money" for people using food banks right now!  And as far as @mansr's concern regarding more expense for what is purportedly better quality - what do you think is the case right now?  Do you pay more for 24/96 than Redbook, still more for 24/192, still more for DSD (if that's available)?  Of course!

 

Are these prices truly reflective of expenses, or is this monopoly pricing?  I can't be absolutely certain, but prices for Redbook or even hi res downloads at places like Bandcamp (usually in the $7-$10 range for an album) are certainly suggestive, or more than suggestive.

 

So no need to worry about the Big 3 using MQA to rip you off - you're being ripped off as we speak by an industry where market concentration has allowed monopoly pricing.  (Who among the labels competes on price these days?)

 

The *only* thing limiting the price of music right now isn't that we don't have MQA, it's what the core demographic for hi res is willing to pay.  That wouldn't change with MQA.  What *would* change is that we'd have music technically of inferior quality, so the music company execs could tell their bosses and boards they did something to prevent piracy.

Hi,

The problem will be when the 3 major labels move to MQA only. MQA by default provides high resolution. You purchase an MQA download or MQA CD, you automatically have high resolution. That is how it works.

 

So, given that they are charging more for MQA since it is high resolution, will future CD's which are only MQA CD's be greater in price - since they are by default all high resolution ?. No, the record labels will lose too many sales if they charge high resolution prices. So, if MQA CD's become default, they will have to invoke the patents to ensure that you cannot get high resolution from a cheap MQA CD (cheap, in that they cost the same as RBCD).

 

What is the point of MQA and all the relevant patents (Meridian Ltd ones too) if it is just another high resolution format ?. Offers sound wise, nothing that the others do. MQA offers a lot of control and a potential for music with different quality tiers, and strict playback operations.

 

On the food bank statement - people in poverty always remain in poverty. Here in the UK - there are many people struggling to survive. You always hear of success stories, but not the other 99.9% who didn't make it.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[new_media]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Again, MQA is plainly not necessary for pricing purposes in what is already a monopoly situation.  ( @wgscott used to have a great Hunter Thompson quote about the music industry, which I can't remember now, in his sig.) It allows two things: (1) The industry to think, or at least claim, it is doing something about piracy; (2) marketing something as hi res that isn't.

 

I have to wonder how much of a problem piracy even is anymore. Why bother downloading pirated files when you can listen to anything and everything on the free Spotify tier? I'm sure the RIAA still tracks data on it but I haven't seen them publicize it recently.

 

I think at this point music sales is mostly competing with streaming. The labels can only charge so much for a CD or a download before customers will just give up and stream everything.

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Anyone have a clue as to the number of high end DAC's sold?  Choose a number (somewhat arbitrary of course), say any DAC abovwe $1k, or $2K (what I would choose), or $5k.  How many of these things are sold each year globally, nationally?

 

China's the wild card, since I'm guessing they'll be responsible for a fair number of sales if they're not already, but how long do you think a DRM scheme might successfully last there?

 

So sales for US, EU, Japan, and perhaps India might give some notion of a high end DAC market that MQA would aim at.  But I have no earthly idea what those figures would look like, though if I were a gambling man, I'd put money on the proposition that it's lower than the number of AV receivers sold in Los Angeles in a comparable period.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, new_media said:

 

I have to wonder how much of a problem piracy even is anymore. Why bother downloading pirated files when you can listen to anything and everything on the free Spotify tier? I'm sure the RIAA still tracks data on it but I haven't seen them publicize it recently.

 

I think at this point music sales is mostly competing with streaming. The labels can only charge so much for a CD or a download before customers will just give up and stream everything.

 

It's not a problem, except when music industry execs use it as the excuse for why sales aren't higher.  As I mentioned, look at quotes from RIAA brass.  They've never come off this theme.

[mav52]

36 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

..Cept...Art Dudley did mention it..and it ain't in no spec sheet...hmmm

 

Oh yes I see that. So I see and read a ping for MQA.  ...It only supports the cheerleaders that Stereophile has become, they now talk up MQA on non MQA products.  Un freaking real..

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

24 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

That was rather the whole point being made then, that Stereophile went out of their way to mention the lack of MQA decoding as a supposed deficit both in the specs and again in the listening, while the U.K. review (properly) makes no mention of MQA at all.

 

Seems especially suspect given the writer then magically prefers the 24/48 MQA version of a track to a 24/96 PCM version despite no actual MQA decoding taking place on the former, not even the first unfold, as that file was played from a USB thumb drive. Ridiculous (or possibly the intentional selection of a track whose 24/96 mastering is not great).

 

 

Yes, exactly, very well stated.

 

The contrast between the two publications and their approach is rather stark...😲

 

 

[crenca]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

I'd put money on the proposition that it's lower than the number of AV receivers sold in Los Angeles in a comparable period.

 

This would be a safe bet I think. I assume the number of $2k + DACs sold per year to be quite low...any more than a few thousand would surprise me.

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, mav52 said:

 

Oh yes I see that. So I see and read a ping for MQA.  ...It only supports the cheerleaders that Stereophile has become, they now talk up MQA on non MQA products.  Un freaking real..

 

Ah, see this @John_Atkinson, even those in the cheap seats can see that Stereophile is product placing MQA.  Your denial does not withstand scrutiny.

[ipeverywhere]

21 minutes ago, new_media said:

 

I have to wonder how much of a problem piracy even is anymore. Why bother downloading pirated files when you can listen to anything and everything on the free Spotify tier? I'm sure the RIAA still tracks data on it but I haven't seen them publicize it recently.

 

 

 

Filed just this past week: https://musically.com/2019/03/26/major-labels-sue-american-isp-charter-communications/

 

Of the people I know who were heavily into this back in the Napster days those still doing it are more interested in the number of files they own than actually listening to anything they download. Most people I know who used to pirate music are now focused on pulling down movies and have pretty extensive Plex libraries of pirated stuff. You don't hear much about the RIAA going after "people" anymore because they had to stop doing that. Suing individuals was destroying their reputation and souring the entire industry. It backfired. They are now going after the ISPs for inaction when they identify the source of an illegal repository and the ISP doesn't close the account. Not sure they will be successful going after the ISPs though. So, yes, piracy is still alive and well if for no other reason than people can. I'm continuously amazed where people find the freetime to inconvenience themselves over just paying the $9.99 a month but, I guess, there are stranger hobbies.