MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

Most people have no idea what MQA is and they don’t care about it.   Audiophile sites and meets are the only places that MQA is discussed.

 

This is so true, despite Paul apparently being in deep denial.

[MikeyFresh]

14 minutes ago, crenca said:

Is this where Bob S says he/MQA is "correcting the arithmetic" of DAC's?

 

Yes, and don't forget the ADCs, he's correcting for all of their fundamental flaws as well.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Where are you seeing this?  Setting aside MQA's desires for success, where are you seeing "so many people jumping on the MQA bandwagon"?

 

In that super-metropolis of Cheyenne, Wyoming where they evidently have a burgeoning audiophile population that just adores MQA, and contacts Paul regularly to wax poetic about the latest cuts they heard on Tidal.

 

Cheyenne, WY Population: 63,624

 

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

I have been telling people that I think the DRM possibilities are a concern, at least for the future.

 

When you warned the hundreds of audiophiles you've interviewed on MQA about about the spectre of DRM, did you record their reactions in your journal entries?

 

Has that data already been incorporated into your unnamed axes chart?

 

Were the nuns at the convent you recommended to Jean-Luc queried on MQA, and if so, how were their responses weighted relative to standard Tidal HiFi subscribers?

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

Nor are any of them perfect, and so far as I know none of them claim to be.

 

No one is perfect, and no one claimed they were or were not, however you skipped the part about their obvious conflict of interest Paul. That was the point being made there as I read it.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Why are they winning hearts and minds?  

 

They aren't, except those of the trade press, that despite your roving journal entries.

[MikeyFresh]

On 5/28/2019 at 3:01 PM, LoryWiv said:

If I convert these files to 24 bit / 48 kHz wave and then back to FLAC

 

I've heard you can actually upfold that to 24/96 using leaky filters and the resulting aliasing artifacts will cause the shedding of tears in grown men, as whole new worlds are birthed. 

 

Kind of like the Genesis Device in Star Trek II.

[MikeyFresh]

5 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

That statista link (stats are as of March 2018) says 49M

 

The various reported numbers vary due to differences in any given report using U.S. vs. worldwide, and also paid vs. total subscribers.

 

Various news outlets reported in late April that worldwide Spotify now has over 100 million paid subs, while Apple has 50 million paid subscribers worldwide.

 

However in the U.S. only, Apple had recently pulled into the lead with 28 million paid, vs. 26 million paid for Spotify. 

 

Tidal's subscriber numbers, worldwide or otherwise, paid or free, absolutely pale in comparison... MQA evidently not a magic bullet in competing with the big boys of streaming, they are getting crushed.

 

Even with a big lead in paid subscribers worldwide, Spotify still bleeds money every quarter.

 

From The Verge on April 29th:

 

Spotify is still losing money despite its subscriber growth. The company posted a loss of €142 million ($158.3 million) for the January to March quarter, compared with a loss of €169 million in the same period last year.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

 

Previous quarter was profitable...

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/6/18214331/spotify-earnings-financial-announcement-profits-music-streaming-podcast

 

That was their first ever and yes most recent quarter was another loss but as paid subscriber numbers continue to climb and their year on year losses get smaller, it's not rocket surgery to guess where they're heading...

 

 

 

Point taken, but one quarter does not a company make. Further, creative bookkeeping or other one-time  revenue events or revisions to previous results can skew any particular reporting period, which is why analysts often toss out any outliers entirely when considering the overall situation.

 

I'm no finance expert, but I do know that Spotify's benefactors won't forever tolerate the loss of $150 million or so in a quarter unless they feel a final consolidation of the industry is imminent, and they will emerge as the victor.

 

Every day that deep pocketed Apple Music more than nips at their heels, especially in the lucrative U.S. market, the prospects for Spotify dampen just a bit more.

 

All that aside, and more on-topic here, what do you think all of that means for Tidal and their MQA bet?

 

Or maybe Tidal owes MQA next to nothing, perhaps they are shrewd negotiators that realized long ago MQA needs them much more than they need MQA? I wouldn't doubt it, much like the record labels who were able to obtain an equity stake in MQA for next to nothing, after all, MQA needed the labels far worse than the labels needed MQA.

 

Lastly, the poor artist/content creators... streaming hasn't exactly worked out super well for them either,  is that too unsustainable, or is it just the reality of private equity powered big business (the labels) killing the goose that laid the golden egg?

[MikeyFresh]

On 6/14/2019 at 6:52 PM, new_media said:

MQA is so remarkable that it can extract songs from the master tapes that were never even recorded.

 

Yes but only if those tapes are given the full white glove treatment, in which case the Adulterator LED glows a special chartreuse color not to be confused with plain yellow or green. 

 

Chartreuse  = 768 kHz.

 

You can stream some of these unrecorded tracks on Tidal (only), or they can be upfolded from MQA-CD.

[MikeyFresh]

42 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Lavorgna spends his time making big proclamations every week. Really kinda comical.

 

Is there some sort of hard-set rule about streaming and music storage/ripping/downloads being mutually exclusive?

 

I must have missed the memo on that directive... or is that Tidal/MQA propaganda as distributed through the media?

 

After all, the labels should be willing to distribute music through all viable channels, in the best interest of the artist/content creators, right?

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

What now? I know the MQA format can be used at any sample rate, but I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to do that.

 

They are, and they think buyers are stupid enough to want to pay $10 more for it than the 24/96 source transfer:

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

Doesn't that simply mean it's a normal MQA distributed as 48/24 with metadata indicating a 192 kHz original?

Good question, and I'd guess it's as Slap suggested earlier, they just take what the label sends them and ask no questions.

 

11 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

This begs a question. Why would ANYBODY want to BUY an MQA file, as oppose to stream it.

Another great question, I thought the whole idea was supposed bandwidth savings conducive to streaming? And oh by the way... the entire world is now ready to pay dearly for premium tier lossless streaming, right? If so, then who exactly is buying these MQA downloads?

 

[MikeyFresh]

51 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

A better question is anybody buying MQA files?

I would imagine no, not at $39 per album as in the ProStudioMasters example above.

[MikeyFresh]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Blu-Ray typically has 24/196k audio, or DSD available on disc.   

 

DSD on Blu-ray is not a thing to the best of my knowledge. Neither is 24/196.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

- almost every DVD and BluRay video out there has audio processed with Meridian Lossless Packing

 

Only the short-lived DVD-Audio format used MLP.

 

For DVD-Video (the vast majority of DVDs ever produced) the standard was lossy Dolby Digital (AC-3), DTS, or straight LPCM.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, mav52 said:

This one " almost every DVD and BluRay video out there has audio processed with Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP ", pretty much true https://www.revolvy.com/page/Meridian-Lossless-Packing

 

Sorry, but that's not pretty much true. Right there in the very link you posted, and as well pointed out yesterday by both @alfe and me too, DVD-Video does not contain "audio processed with MLP".

 

 

Seeing as DVD-Video accounts for 99%+ of the prerecorded DVDs ever produced, and DVD-Audio is only a fraction of a percent of the total DVDs ever produced, Paul's statement is incorrect (as was his assertion that Blu-ray discs contain DSD).

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, StreamHiRes said:

Why the radical change of heart?

 

Maybe read the thread for those answers? Thats assuming of course you care to actually know why Chris and others have taken the position they have, it's all there over the course of 4+ year's worth of posts.

 

What you can't do is just skip all of that very thought provoking discussion, and then jump in now pretending that it never occurred. It did, and it is archived here for all who care to read it, MQA has been fully debunked on a technical level, and also proven to be an anti-consumer technology.

 

Note: I seriously doubt you are just some bystander consumer that loves MQA, no one is fooled by that charade, you've so far done a very poor job of masquerading.

[MikeyFresh]

55 minutes ago, wdw said:

in the early days of the hifi press hysteria (that birth of a brand new era euphoria)

 

According to Stereophile it was actually the birth of a new world.

55 minutes ago, wdw said:

it became increasing clear that MQA would not, at shows, play an evenly matched pair of files each having the same master and gain.  

At one point I put this off to arrogance, then stupidity but in these later days it seems the only conclusion is intended deceit.

 

Yes, those were disingenuous acts at best...more like premeditated deceit, and the audio press went for it hook, line, and sinker (or were they just playing along?).

 

55 minutes ago, wdw said:

We have a full MQA renderer DAC...(dCS Bartok) and the one artifact that seems constant to us is the noticeable gain (easily readable on the DAC) for the MQA alternate.  

 

Thank you, PaulR can add that data point to his comprehensive survey, or perhaps you had already been interviewed in the Cheyenne area?

No? what about Salt Lake City?

[MikeyFresh]

40 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Or you can just attack me, because I refuse to buy into the stupid group think and middle school taunting you and others wish to engage in.

 

More fake news, you weren't attacked with any middle school taunts, not here anyway. Nice try.

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

this is probably a must read:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/meridian_8082808i2_signature_reference_cd_playerpreamplifier/index.html

 

"The real beauty of the 808i.2 lies inside, however. The CD data are upsampled to a 176.4kHz sample rate and 24-bit depth by Meridian's proprietary Resolution Enhancement algorithm before being sent to high-quality but unidentified delta-sigma DAC chips. But along the way, the data are subjected to a new kind of reconstruction filter that Meridian calls an "apodizing" device."

 

after being pleased by the sound....

 

"Were these benefits the result of the 808i.2's apodizing reconstruction filter eliminating the time smear from a recording's original A/D converter?"
 

 

Quite interesting/ironic... an apparent early indication of when JA was first hooked/intrigued/utilized to promote the notion of the superiority of BS's anodizing filter, and the elimination of supposed time smear whose source is the original ADC.

 

How did they do that in 2009? So that disc player had a Resolution Enhancement Algorithm performing upsampling to 24/176.4, and then the anodizing filter fixed the inherent flaws of all ADCs ever used for any transfer of any analog tape ever made by means of time smear elimination?

 

If so, then we've underestimated the date of audio's big boom event by a bunch of years, apparently all new worlds were being birthed in 2009, or even earlier as other Meridian disc players such as the 2008 G08.2 also had that same DSP-based upsampling and apodizing filter.

 

Sounds like that unit should have been worthy of the exact same "birth of a new world" type prose as MQA currently is, no?

 

But what about the encoding? Did JA have MQA-CD back in 2009? No silly me, the audio origami is only necessary to make streaming viable, what with it's enormous bandwidth savings/benefit.

 

So that's two big issues solved, time smear and streaming bandwidth. Brilliant (ignore the DRM, nothing to see/move along).

 

Oh wait, I forgot, there's something newer, far more special and different going on with MQA, much more than meets the eye, but only truly interesting and worth exploring to a relative few, and only under strict NDA lockdown.

 

I have a bridge for sale, it's in Brooklyn.

 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Wow, isn’t that a little cynical?

 

No, it isn't.

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

I mean, after all - that applies to almost all commercial entities, doesn’t it? 

 

Yes, it does... but not all commercial entities are attempting an end-to-end grab of the music distribution industry, burdening the consumer with pass along licensing fees and DRM.

 

But I see your point, there are plenty of commercial entities who are largely shunned by the marketplace due to their blatant predatory anti-consumer business model and practices, MQA should be treated no differently.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

Finally, at the risk of repeating myself further, I think the issue with Paul is that he simply comes off as condescending, because he's so intent on casting himself as The Rational Man and those who disagree with him as basically unhinged. That kind of thing tends to make people angry and they don't respond well - and their anger is only compounded when he repeatedly says some version of, "Why are you attacking me? I was only making rational comments." We can argue until the cows come home who is responsible for that dynamic, but it's not hard to see why such a dynamic develops - and "because this place is just a lynch mob" is not a persuasive explanation in my book.

 

You've hit the nail on the head.

[MikeyFresh]

55 minutes ago, Paul R said:

In the audiophile market, which defines everyone here, it is always and inevitably about the sound. 

 

Not always.

 

I am an audiophile, but in the case of MQA it has little or nothing to do with the sound for me, and everything to do with the very real threat to consumers and artists that MQA represents.

 

I for one do not wish to pay the MQA tax at every stop, nor be subjected to their obvious DRM play, or see artists paid 1/50th of a penny for every supposed streamed track.

 

The fact that various technical analysis of MQA have demonstrated it to be dubious at best in terms of delivered sound quality only bolsters my anti-MQA sentiment, but it isn't the foundation for that stance.

 

There are many others both here and elsewhere who count themselves as audiophiles taking the exact same position, that despite the data from your Cheyenne/SLC area audiophile survey, and the conclusions you've reached from it.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

I attended the presentation at AXPONA because many opponents of MQA - including, IIRC, Chris Connaker - had said they would be there to ask Mike Jbara questions. However, as you can read in my report - https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-master-class - none of the critics turned up. So it goes.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Did you ask any challenging questions, or are you of the opinion there are none to be asked?