MQA is Vaporware

[Archimago]

35 minutes ago, firedog said:

I corrected him in the comments and will continue to do so. It really is scandalous that he continues to write this. It's exactly the type of thing that JA and the others at Stereophile seem to be oblivious to when  they seem not to understand why their publications and writings aren't held in the highest esteem here. 

 

Good response @firedog. I can't imagine any regular Stereophile reader not finding it funny how JVS continues to shill for MQA (among others).

 

By this point, there are 4 options left:

1. Naiveté.

2. Cognitive-intellectual deficiency.

3. Delusion.

4. Stubborn, closed mindedness - maybe even passive aggression.

5. Some kind of gain - financial or otherwise.

 

I think naiveté is not really an option these days given the recurrent corrections in the comments by many over the years.

 

For his sake, I hope it's #5 - at least he's obtaining some kind of gain despite the obvious unfortunate clownish claims.

[firedog]

47 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Good response @firedog. I can't imagine any regular Stereophile reader not finding it funny how JVS continues to shill for MQA (among others).

 

By this point, there are 4 options left:

1. Naiveté.

2. Cognitive-intellectual deficiency.

3. Delusion.

4. Stubborn, closed mindedness - maybe even passive aggression.

5. Some kind of gain - financial or otherwise.

 

I think naiveté is not really an option these days given the recurrent corrections in the comments by many over the years.

 

For his sake, I hope it's #5 - at least he's obtaining some kind of gain despite the obvious unfortunate clownish claims.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I think it is some combination of 2, 3, and 4. Most likely 3 and 4. I think he's such a fanboy that he automatically rejects anything that contradicts his view. Much like Lee Scoggins. 

[mcgillroy]

Interesting articles on the role of metadata for streaming royalties: 

 

https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/31/royalties-from-streaming-music/

 

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/03/music-industry-royalty-black-box/

 

So let's make a bet how long it will take MQA and/or MQA shills to pick this up and spin MQA as a solution! I'd guess we'll read something no later than end of June 2019.

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Interesting articles on the role of metadata for streaming royalties: 

 

https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/31/royalties-from-streaming-music/

 

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/03/music-industry-royalty-black-box/

 

So let's make a bet how long it will take MQA and/or MQA shills to pick this up and spin MQA as a solution! I'd guess we'll read something no later than end of June 2019.

 

This is off-topic here, but I'm glad you shared it - it's a fascinating (and disturbing) issue, and I wasn't aware of it.

[gdpr]

4 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Interesting articles on the role of metadata for streaming royalties: 

 

https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/31/royalties-from-streaming-music/

 

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/03/music-industry-royalty-black-box/

 

So let's make a bet how long it will take MQA and/or MQA shills to pick this up and spin MQA as a solution! I'd guess we'll read something no later than end of June 2019.

Hi@mcgillroy

would you mind to make this a separate topic (without the MQA stuff)

I strongly believe that what is explained here have possible bigger impact on the music industry than MQA.

Dirk

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

I corrected him in the comments and will continue to do so. It really is scandalous that he continues to write this. It's exactly the type of thing that JA and the others at Stereophile seem to be oblivious to when  they seem not to understand why their publications and writings aren't held in the highest esteem here. 

Well done pero de fuego!😎

[james45974]

13 hours ago, firedog said:

I corrected him in the comments and will continue to do so. It really is scandalous that he continues to write this. It's exactly the type of thing that JA and the others at Stereophile seem to be oblivious to when  they seem not to understand why their publications and writings aren't held in the highest esteem here. 

Where is the new editor??   Isn't it part of an editors job to correct things like this? 

[christopher3393]

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Well done pero de fuego!😎

 

but of fire?

ohhhh, sorry, perro del fuego, si, si!

 

 

firedog has a knack for keeping his cool when things get hot while still speaking his mind. what's up with that?

[gdpr]

4 hours ago, ddetaey said:

Hi@mcgillroy

would you mind to make this a separate topic (without the MQA stuff)

I strongly believe that what is explained here have possible bigger impact on the music industry than MQA.

Dirk

 

@porkchop has created a topic "Metadata the biggest little problem plaguing the music industry" in the Music part of the forum.

Dirk

 

(sorry but I have not found a way to refer directly to this new topic)

 

[mcgillroy]

5 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

This is off-topic here, but I'm glad you shared it - it's a fascinating (and disturbing) issue, and I wasn't aware of it.

 

Thank you and I put it here because it might not be off topic at all.

 

The A in MQA stands for Authentication. “Provenance” in MQA speak. That’s all bull as we know but it you want to prevent the metadata issues described in the articles  a mechanism providing cryptographic attribution for the rights holders would come in handy.

 

I am not sure if the current implementation allows for unique identifiers to be buried in the lowest bit but if not it would be trivial to implement. Mansr or Archimago could probably answer if MQA already includes this. 

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Thank you and I put it here because it might not be off topic at all.

 

The A in MQA stands for Authentication. “Provenance” in MQA speak. That’s all bull as we know but it you want to prevent the metadata issues described in the articles  a mechanism providing cryptographic attribution for the rights holders would come in handy.

 

I am not sure if the current implementation allows for unique identifiers to be buried in the lowest bit but if not it would be trivial to implement. Mansr or Archimago could probably answer if MQA already includes this. 

MQA allows including ID3 tags in the "authenticated" data. Does that answer the question?

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, mansr said:

MQA allows including ID3 tags in the "authenticated" data. Does that answer the question? 

 

What do you mean?  Aren't the tags at the beginning of the file? (And MQA is consistent with flac files with vorbis comments.)

[Sal1950]

22 hours ago, Archimago said:

5. Some kind of gain - financial or otherwise.

That's the ticket, for him and that rest to the crew.

It's not a direct payment thing, but more in the way they all feel it's good for the industry in a inner-support kind of way.

MQA sells new gear, they make money,  MQA sells premium streaming service, they make money. MQA sells even encoded downloads and even CD's, they make money.  All these people have more money to spend on advertising so Stereophile and it's employee make money.

Everyone is making out but the consumer, he get screwed from every angle.  The worst of which is the slow loss of access to the real Master Quality Ensured,  bit perfect copies of master tapes. We then end up with some type of file that in a number of ways is inferior to the original.

Just what the record labels wanted from DRM in the first place.

[Sal1950]

On 5/28/2019 at 2:01 PM, LoryWiv said:

I have a few MQA encoded FLAC's at 24/48 in my collection, never really paid much attention to the MQA aspect, as they play fine via HQ Player and my non-MQA DAC.

Let me make a suggestion.  Transcode the files any way you desire but never lose your copy of the original file.  You never know what might happen to the others you have made and they will always be the best sounding.  You can never improve on the original.

[LoryWiv]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Let me make a suggestion.  Transcode the files any way you desire but never lose your copy of the original file.  You never know what might happen to the others you have made and they will always be the best sounding.  You can never improve on the original.

Excellent suggestion and yes, I do just that. The transoding is always  just for broader compatibility  away from my main listening station but retaining the original is definitely best practice. Thank you,  Sal1950.

[mansr]

10 hours ago, lucretius said:

What do you mean?  Aren't the tags at the beginning of the file? (And MQA is consistent with flac files with vorbis comments.)

The FLAC level metadata (Vorbis comment tags) is not covered by the MQA authentication. However, the MQA data buried in the low bits of the PCM can, additionally, contain ID3 tags. Normal playback software won't see these. I have no idea what their intended use is. In most files I've checked, they are incomplete or absent entirely.

[4est]

On 5/22/2019 at 7:41 PM, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

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. 

Trump once again?

[Kal Rubinson]

8 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

All these people have more money to spend on advertising so Stereophile and it's employee make money.

Almost none the reviewers, including the current target, are employees.   Try a rifle, not a shotgun.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Almost none the reviewers, including the current target, are employees.   Try a rifle, not a shotgun.

They still get paid.

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Almost none the reviewers, including the current target, are employees.   Try a rifle, not a shotgun.

 

He’s still paid for his articles that are published in Stereophile. You are making a distinction without meaning. 

[rickca]

So can we finally start referring to MQA as MQmeh?

[Ralf11]

MQmeth ??

[Kal Rubinson]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

They still get paid.

 

6 hours ago, daverich4 said:

He’s still paid for his articles that are published in Stereophile. You are making a distinction without meaning. 

He is paid the same regardless of what he says about MQA and that applies to other writers who have not been supportive of it.  I am not defending his words; I only defend my own, but you need to find a different motivation.  

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said:

He is paid the same regardless of what he says about MQA and that applies to other writers who have not been supportive of it.  I am not defending his words; I only defend my own, but you need to find a different motivation.  

Again, you're missing the point, which is that MQA gives writers something new to write about and get paid for.

[kumakuma]

Deleted