MQA is Vaporware

[asdf1000]

New video by Darko with Bob:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mq_RDiROI

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

New video by Darko with Bob:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mq_RDiROI

what utter tripe. that smooth British accent can't even overcome the steaming pile of bullshit he is spewing. 😃

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

New video by Darko with Bob:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mq_RDiROI

This is sickening...I have never heard so much absolute excrement. 

 

History shows that when charlatans are just about out of options, they try to redefine established technical terms, distort reality, and with a straight face spew horse manure in a fashion that make palatable to the ignorant. 

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

This is sickening...

 

That’s a bit extreme... 

 

I’ve noticed in interviews, the more controversial the comment from Bob’s mouth, the quieter he gets. Almost like a whisper. Makes me chuckle every time. We can still hear you Bob.

 

I love how Darko cuts it quickly with Bob’s very last comment... “it’s good for everybody”

 

I wonder if they both burst out laughing right after.

 

[Currawong]

On 5/16/2019 at 3:48 AM, John_Atkinson said:

 

Really? What I have complained about is when people have posted false defamatory and demeaning comments about me or Stereophile's writers or have asked Chris to delete posts that infringe on Stereophile's copyright. But "censure this thread"? Not at all.

 

The problem I've had with these MQA threads, given that I'm here to research the technical elements, is sifting through all the crap. When I was moderating Head-Fi, the same thing would happen in the "Sound Science" forum, or "un-Sound Science" forum as some people nicknamed it, as it was more about chest thumping on how high-res/cables/whatever is snake oil, and would quickly descend into suggestions that a person who thought otherwise was deluded. At least one person here (who posted very useful technical info at point) is someone I banned at one point for this kind of abuse. I really would like a good technical summary, but sifting through something close to a thousand pages across multiple threads for all the good info would take too long, and I can't find Chris' presentation any more online. 

 

Really, all this pissing on Bob (understandable as it may be) really doesn't help anything. How do you explain to someone who has no technical understanding why MQA is dubious?

 

On 5/16/2019 at 10:34 AM, Paul R said:

I will say it isn't "junk science."

 

On 5/17/2019 at 3:30 AM, Paul R said:

Yes but I think they are under more pressure now, and might respond differently now. I mean, after all, they need a chance to disseminate their point of view, in a safe environment.

 

On 5/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, Paul R said:

 

Well, all I can say is you are thinking of them like people, not like a business.  Most inimical companies can turn around and become partners in an incredibly short period of time. Look at Apple and Qualcomm.  

 

If you look at them as a business, their behavior becomes a bit more understandable. Still wrong, and still stupid, but understandable at least. 

 

It is possible to conduct business with integrity and honesty, without compromising principles.  It says much that you seem to consider normal business behaviour to be lying, and when caught, making up alternative bullshit to justify those lies. Worse still attempting to change standard science-based definitions of terms to mean something they don't to sell your product, i.e. Trying to re-define high-res as something that isn't high-res at all.

 

That means that they don't have a "point of view" rather than what could be described as a "post truth" goal, to sell The Audiophile's New Music. More fundamentally, their "point of view" doesn't negate the actual science and the reality. So asking Chris to kiss-and-make-up with them is of zero benefit. You're asking Chris, and everyone here to just forget everything they have done wrong, and are still doing wrong, and give them a chance to redeem themselves. Really? There is nothing MQA can say (other than admitting the truth) that is of any interest to him, or anyone, except those wanting to live in the lie.

 

[Archimago]

Another interview with the same old same old...

 

He's leaning quite a bit on the "neuroscience" again yet nothing concrete (again, are we talking about the neuroscience of human hearing?) and spends quite a bit of time on vision and the digital photo analogy as well. Have not seen him hit this angle as much before.

 

Not exactly "hard hitting" investigative journalism from Darko 🙂... He seems like a nice guy. But just like the vast majority of audio reviewers, he's clearly staying away from an actual dialogue with serious questions or willingness to address the "elephant in the room" at this stage, after all these years, which is the amount of negativity on account of the obvious lack of evidence for what Mr. Stuart claims. (Not to mention the ongoing, unfortunate half-truths and slight-of-hand around terms like "lossless" which of course rightly gets many folks angry.)

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

36 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

That’s a bit extreme... 

 

I’ve noticed in interviews, the more controversial the comment from Bob’s mouth, the quieter he gets. Almost like a whisper. Makes me chuckle every time. We can still hear you Bob.

 

I love how Darko cuts it quickly with Bob’s very last comment... “it’s good for everybody”

 

I wonder if they both burst out laughing right after.

 

"That’s a bit extreme... "

 

Nope, 

 

Other than that, good observations. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

23 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Another interview with the same old same old...

 

He's leaning quite a bit on the "neuroscience" again yet nothing concrete (again, are we talking about the neuroscience of human hearing?) and spends quite a bit of time on vision and the digital photo analogy as well. Have not seen him hit this angle as much before.

 

Not exactly "hard hitting" investigative journalism from Darko 🙂... He seems like a nice guy. But just like the vast majority of audio reviewers, he's clearly staying away from an actual dialogue with serious questions or willingness to address the "elephant in the room" at this stage, after all these years, which is the amount of negativity on account of the obvious lack of evidence for what Mr. Stuart claims. (Not to mention the ongoing, unfortunate half-truths and slight-of-hand around terms like "lossless" which of course rightly gets many folks angry.)

a very eloquent and refined post...let the summarize for the rest of us...it was total bullshit. 😍

[Archimago]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

a very eloquent and refined post...let the summarize for the rest of us...it was total bullshit. 😍

 

I don't have a British accent but it's nice to emulate it with eloquence and refinement :-).

 

[asdf1000]

3 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

That’s a bit extreme... "

 

Nope, 

 

Bob makes me chuckle... he doesn’t make me feel sick..

 

That’s just me though.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

I don't have a British accent but it's nice to emulate it with eloquence and refinement :-).

 

I would love to be in a room and see Bob try to pull his mumbo jumbo junk science act on you...I would pay good money Arch!

[Archimago]

38 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I would love to be in a room and see Bob try to pull his mumbo jumbo junk science act on you...I would pay good money Arch!

 

LOL.

 

Actually, I'd pay good money to see Bob and @mansr have at it! Now that could be one heck of a show :-).

 

 

[Ran]

When Bob says the "analog sound in the air" you know he is about to sell you something.

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

LOL.

 

Actually, I'd pay good money to see Bob and @mansr have at it! Now that could be one heck of a show :-).

 

 

Yeah, +1 to this. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

snip
 

Really, all this pissing on Bob (understandable as it may be) really doesn't help anything. How do you explain to someone who has no technical understanding why MQA is dubious?

 

snip

 

 

Well MQA is a big gob of crap.  Anywhere you touch it is like a smelly tar baby. 

 

I'd start with the fact it is not lossless. 

 

Next that it actually doesn't have the full dynamics of CD. 

 

That it has leaky filters that allow aliasing and imaging. 

 

That the provenance, authentication, etc. is simply a con job. 

 

The claim to retroactively determine what gear was used to compensate for it when they do nothing of the sort. 

 

The way that the high sample rates are a con completely past 96 khz and mostly even at 96 khz. 

 

That it isn't great at saving bandwidth as in fact 20 bit Flac could be smaller and of higher fidelity. 

 

That it could become effectively DRM.

 

There are some other things, but each of these can be rather in depth depending upon the technical knowledge of the person you are explaining it to.  It is already a rather long list for one thing called MQA.  An excellent example of baffling them with BS as a marketing strategy.  Make so many ridiculous claims you get rather involved debunking each of them and every aspect of it is a lie.  It will make people who don't know get that glazed over look before you get started good on all crap involved in being MQA. 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

 

The problem I've had with these MQA threads, given that I'm here to research the technical elements, is sifting through all the crap. When I was moderating Head-Fi, the same thing would happen in the "Sound Science" forum, or "un-Sound Science" forum as some people nicknamed it, as it was more about chest thumping on how high-res/cables/whatever is snake oil, and would quickly descend into suggestions that a person who thought otherwise was deluded. At least one person here (who posted very useful technical info at point) is someone I banned at one point for this kind of abuse. I really would like a good technical summary, but sifting through something close to a thousand pages across multiple threads for all the good info would take too long, and I can't find Chris' presentation any more online. 

 

Really, all this pissing on Bob (understandable as it may be) really doesn't help anything. How do you explain to someone who has no technical understanding why MQA is dubious?

 

 

 

 

It is possible to conduct business with integrity and honesty, without compromising principles.  It says much that you seem to consider normal business behaviour to be lying, and when caught, making up alternative bullshit to justify those lies. Worse still attempting to change standard science-based definitions of terms to mean something they don't to sell your product, i.e. Trying to re-define high-res as something that isn't high-res at all.

 

That means that they don't have a "point of view" rather than what could be described as a "post truth" goal, to sell The Audiophile's New Music. More fundamentally, their "point of view" doesn't negate the actual science and the reality. So asking Chris to kiss-and-make-up with them is of zero benefit. You're asking Chris, and everyone here to just forget everything they have done wrong, and are still doing wrong, and give them a chance to redeem themselves. Really? There is nothing MQA can say (other than admitting the truth) that is of any interest to him, or anyone, except those wanting to live in the lie.

 

Well, that's one man's opinion. Maybe two.   

 

Seriously,  you just went around three corners there. Piss on Bob, Explain the tech to me, and businesses can be run ethically but this one has not been and so piss on it.  You act like they did something personal to you. 

 

The only person I know of who has had a personal conflict with MQA is Chris, and that wasn't with Bob Stuart, it was with the business lackeys. (shrug). 

 

 

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, Currawong said:

How do you explain to someone who has no technical understanding why MQA is dubious?

 

 

Agree with your comments. This MQA Vaporware thread is definitely not the thread to link anybody, for technical (or even non-technical) understanding why MQA is dubious. This MQA Vaporware wouldn't concern or worry MQA Ltd at all. Any good posts in this thread are diluted by extreme comments/reactions and a lot of misinformation. It's probably become a joke to MQA Ltd to be honest (if they're still reading this thread).

 

Two great links to share with others are:

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

and 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30572-mqa-technical-analysis/

 

 

 

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Well MQA is a big gob of crap.  Anywhere you touch it is like a smelly tar baby. 

 

I'd start with the fact it is not lossless. 

 

Next that it actually doesn't have the full dynamics of CD. 

 

That it has leaky filters that allow aliasing and imaging. 

 

That the provenance, authentication, etc. is simply a con job. 

 

The claim to retroactively determine what gear was used to compensate for it when they do nothing of the sort. 

 

The way that the high sample rates are a con completely past 96 khz and mostly even at 96 khz. 

 

That it isn't great at saving bandwidth as in fact 20 bit Flac could be smaller and of higher fidelity. 

 

That it could become effectively DRM.

 

There are some other things, but each of these can be rather in depth depending upon the technical knowledge of the person you are explaining it to.  It is already a rather long list for one thing called MQA.  An excellent example of baffling them with BS as a marketing strategy.  Make so many ridiculous claims you get rather involved debunking each of them and every aspect of it is a lie.  It will make people who don't know get that glazed over look before you get started good on all crap involved in being MQA. 

 

 

 

That's a great list, thanks. I just need pictures to help things along.

 

1. Not lossless. That's where I usually start. Covered by this patent pic. 

 

2. Doesn't have the full dynamics of CD Quality. Ok, I missed that one. Got a link to the discussion of that?

 

3. Leaky filters. Got that from "MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions"

 

4. Authentication. Ditto above. I remember great post someone made in one of the other threads about all the manipulation and electronics a regular audio master has had done to it before it is sent out on a format, so the ADC processing is irrelevant. If anyone recalls it, please link me.

 

5. ADC used filters. That was mansr's deconstruction of the baked-in filters inside the MQA code wasn't it?

 

6. 96k limit. As per the image from a couple of pages back showing totally different HF content?

 

7. It was 18-bit, 176k FLAC according to Archimago wasn't it?

 

8. DRM. That was in materials sent to studios wasn't it? I don't recall exactly where though.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Well, that's one man's opinion. Maybe two.   

 

Seriously,  you just went around three corners there. Piss on Bob, Explain the tech to me, and businesses can be run ethically but this one has not been and so piss on it.  You act like they did something personal to you. 

 

The only person I know of who has had a personal conflict with MQA is Chris, and that wasn't with Bob Stuart, it was with the business lackeys. (shrug). 

 

Nothing personal at all. But this does come across as a "You're just being emotional" argument and doesn't address what I wrote at all. 

[Siltech817]

7 hours ago, Em2016 said:

New video by Darko with Bob:

 

More gibberish.

 

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

It's probably become a joke to MQA Ltd

 

I doubt it is a laughing matter to them.

 

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

Well, that's one man's opinion.

 

Hmmm... I think not.

 

 

[asdf1000]

15 minutes ago, Siltech817 said:

I doubt it is a laughing matter to them.

 

I was referring to this particular thread (MQA is Vaporware) very specifically...

 

The links I shared above would be much much less a laughing matter for MQA Ltd...

 

[Paul R]

49 minutes ago, Currawong said:

 

 

Nothing personal at all. But this does come across as a "You're just being emotional" argument and doesn't address what I wrote at all. 

 

 

I would highly recommend the posting below. It is the best summary I know of, is written well, and is pretty much what anyone considering MQA needs to know. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, Currawong said:

6. 96k limit. As per the image from a couple of pages back showing totally different HF content?

 

This image?

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=957196

 

I asked @FredericV some questions about this but never got a response...

 

How does "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only).... ?

 

And even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) vs DXD?

 

The reason I asked is because at my end, even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) versus DXD doesn't like great on my end... and there's no MQA even involved...

 

On the other hand, "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only) looks very similar...

 

Hoping he could check and confirm...

 

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Em2016 said:

This image?

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=957196

 

I asked @FredericV some questions about this but never got a response...

Maybe because he didn't create those graphs. I did.

 

2 hours ago, Em2016 said:

How does "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only).... ?

 

And even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) vs DXD?

 

The reason I asked is because at my end, even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) versus DXD doesn't like great on my end... and there's no MQA even involved...

 

On the other hand, "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only) looks very similar...

A 24/96 downsampled version obviously discards any content above 48 kHz that may be present in a higher-rate original. Below 48 kHz (minus a small transition band) it will match exactly if the downsampling is done properly. The MQA "first unfold" output has a 96 kHz sample rate, so the frequency content there is also limited to 48 kHz. There has to be some loss compared to the non-MQA version, but for most music it is probably insignificant. When MQA is "rendered," content above 48 kHz is simply invented with no relation to what was in the original file. That's where the huge discrepancy comes from.

[asdf1000]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

A 24/96 downsampled version obviously discards any content above 48 kHz that may be present in a higher-rate original. Below 48 kHz (minus a small transition band) it will match exactly if the downsampling is done properly. The MQA "first unfold" output has a 96 kHz sample rate, so the frequency content there is also limited to 48 kHz. There has to be some loss compared to the non-MQA version, but for most music it is probably insignificant. When MQA is "rendered," content above 48 kHz is simply invented with no relation to what was in the original file. That's where the huge discrepancy comes from.

 

Noted. But how does the "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look on the same graph? Same track

 

Especially compared to the DXD file of that track...

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

Noted. But how does the "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look on the same graph? Same track

 

Especially compared to the DXD file of that track...

It tracks the DXD file exactly until just below 48 kHz, unless they botched the downsampling.