MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

No real audiophile invests in lossy playback. That’s so pseudo 

 

So true

[botrytis]

Nope - behind paywall for me and in the US.

[botrytis]

Just now, Em2016 said:

 

I can't access the full think either but saw this much:

 

"Mr Stuart's MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) format has just been adopted by Alibaba's Xiami music-streaming service, with its 14m subscribers in China."

 

But how many are actually are interested in it? The issue is they more than likely have tiers of subscriptions - How many at that level?

[botrytis]

24 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Actually Michael Fremer accepted the challenge on the condition that the blind testing be performed by Scientific American magazine. See https://gizmodo.com/updated-journalist-accepts-1-million-challenge-do-7-311034. Randi backed out.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

There is nothing in there stated about that, but I did skim the article. It proves nothing.......

 

ABX testing has been done before - Boston Audio Society has done quite a bit.

 

https://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

 

They even did one on Amplifiers. I have it at home and can post it later.

 

[botrytis]

As anyone who has read this whole thread, there is plenty of data and proof to show that MQA was never what they said it was nor what it will be. I can make a 192/24 FLAC (with higher packing rate) be smaller than a 96/24 MQA file. MQA cannot be packed any higher due to how it is encoded. So, one fallacy - MQA filer are better for streaming - check not true.

 

2. The fact that is is lossless - based on the patent we know that it is lossy not lossless. Supposedly, this only affect the ultrasonics of the high res files but it has not been proven. The lossy compression could easily remove important information in the frequency range that is important (such as minor harmonics from instruments - like MP3 does). The reason I say this is, I have noted that MQA files DO NOT sound the same as  in a non-MQA file (example Melody Gardot's - Live in Europe).

 

3. MQA files sound louder and sound compressed. See point 2.

 

This is just things that I noticed. With all these issues, why would I listen to MQA? MQA supporters do not have any proof to the otherwise. 

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Doing it again, ad hominem attacks. By way of condescension and ridicule now. Is a way of deflecting and or /distracting away from what is being discussed.  I did not say I am an expert in the field either - there you go again, misquoting.  And still not addressing the point I was making.

 

I am fairly angry about MQA - mainly because they are doing a good job strategically - it may just be good enough to win as well. The tech they have may be just adequate to do so. I have laid that argument out here when I felt it was appropriate to post as "one of those". 

 

'Strategically'? There is no strategy, they just get the recording industry to drop all other formats and we are stuck. 

 

I mean VHS won against Betamax but the Sony product was superior. The reason VHS won was the technology was not horded, like Sony did with Betamax.

 

Here the MQA is VASTLY INFERIOR. Also, the Superior file format (FLAC) is free to use. Why would one use a crappier product?

[botrytis]

Just now, Fast and Bulbous said:

I fully agree. Unfortunately for those who are adopting MQA in the value system around it these arguments are, I suspect, not important. As long as it is "good enough" to allow them to drive the adoption / diffusion of MQA until it is part of infrastructure. And the revenues all flow towards MQA. From where I sit and from the perspective of several mental models, they, MQA, are conforming to the approaches that are designed to win. But just because they do that, does not necessarily mean they will succeed. 

 

When an audiophile wants the best sound and spends boatloads of money for music reproduction, 'good enough' IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

 

My perspective is this: we need to point out the fallacies of MQA constantly. If one wants the best in music reproduction, one does not use a toy piano to play a Sonata, unless you are Schroeder from Peanuts. This is what MQA is to me.

[botrytis]

27 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Do you actually understand innovation diffusion / adoption strategies? Continuous / discontinuous / disruptive / transformative? First hand? I suspect that you do not really. I also used the VHS / Betamax example but further than your simple explanation. MQA are following such approaches more or less to the letter. 

I work in science research (mostly biofuels and algae biofuels) - do you? 

 

MQA is nothing more than MP3 with DRM. What is new to it? 

[botrytis]

Just now, Fast and Bulbous said:

“Don’t bite my finger, look at where it is pointing”.

 

If your not pointing at anything important, why not.

[botrytis]

People's hearing is really rooted in emotion and memory. I mean, think about the first time you heard the music from 'Jaws' or a 'Star Wars' movie, as examples. Think about your reaction when you hear it now. That is what happens the same with any music. Also, hearing can be influenced by hearing descriptions, smells, sight, etc. The only way to divorce one from another is by blind testing. That is why it is so popular for drug testing, etc. and still the placebo affect is very prevalent.

 

The second point is it is hard to change a person's mind, once the decide on what is truth for them. An example is how many people think we still did not land on the moon that it was faked.  Once a person's mind is made up, it is very hard to change it. This is a fact of human learning.

 

Many audiophiles believe the Audio Press as purveyors of good opinion and not just repeaters of press releases. Hence, why many think that MQA is valid and not just a way to glean money with a shoddy product. Hence why we have people continually coming on with MQA beliefs. 

 

People seem to think Digital music is special type of digital data and special rules apply. I have not heard differences, as it comes to cables, moving files, etc. I know people will say that my system is not 'resolving' enough but that is a cop out. They do not want to hear that maybe what they heard was influenced by their decisions to have one opinion or another. Data is data. If music can be corrupted by a cable, why not regular data? I can hear differences in MQA vs FLAC files (both high res and non-high res) on my system and it is not a pleasant experience. Hence why MQA is not on my plate and never will be.

 

Until people really look at the totality of what MQA is, people will never change their minds.

 

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

There is a difference with audio: One can claim that no bits are changed in transmission, but noise conducted along with the data can effect the DA conversion adversely. There’s not a lot of evidence with this other than anecdotal listening observations, but it isn’t impossible. 

 

See, you proved my point. Trying to force one's opinion does not help one's position. It may be that there is a difference but if I can't hear it, does it matter?

 

With MQA, I can hear a difference and is NOT GOOD. That is all I was trying to point out.

[botrytis]

So this is the "MQA ' treatment of music files? NO THANK YOU!!!!!

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

This is fascinating - thank you @mansr, along with @John_Atkinson and the others who've run these analyses. This is the kind of progress (not to mention converging to consensus on basic facts) that can happen when everyone becomes willing to engage about MQA's technical aspects.

 

I totally agree. Thank you both!!!!

[botrytis]

Just now, mansr said:

I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions. There is nothing here that hasn't been known for years.

 

It is true. BUT, this is the type of information that is hard to refute and since @John_Atkinson is also showing this, it bring more credence to the arguments. 

 

Again, Thank y'all who are doing this.

[botrytis]

12 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I know @mansr has already pointed this out, but you really should refer to this as 'imaging' and not 'aliasing'.

 

Imaging is a brain phenomenon, not a file issue.

 

I am not aware of how one can measure imaging in a file since your ears and brain determine that.

[botrytis]

33 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Actually, it is the fact that listeners seem to tend to prefer the leaky DAC reconstruction filters with most kinds of music. Certainly on my commercially released recordings, which people seem to like the sound of, I use the Ayre QA-9 set to "Listen," which has a slow-rolloff antialiasing filter, as the master A/D converter. The possibility for there being some low-level aliasing energy seems to be offset against the better time-domain performance. See the discussion of this trade-off at https://www.stereophile.com/reference/104law/index.html

 

Regarding the behavior of the upsampling performed by the renderer, I assume this will depend on which MQA filter is being used for the upsampling. Perhaps mansr could tell use which one is specified in his file's embedded MQA data? If a filter isn't specified in his data, then the spectral contamination will depend on which upsampling filter the renderer selects as its default.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Problem being, MQA files are NOT what the Engineers and Music Artists wanted when they recorded the music in the first place. So, MQA saying they are more accurate is a pile of excrement. As far as time domain, they have NEVER showed any data that this is a problem so they have a fix to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

 

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

My own experience leads me to prefer "leaky" reconstruction filters for most kinds of music; as does that of some of Stereophile team of reviewers; as does that of readers with whom I have discussed the subject. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with people citing their own experience as a reason for having a preference.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Maybe old ears prefer it? It seems many reviewers in Stereophile are pushing 65+.  

 

I will say, there is nothing wrong with it UNTIL one waxes poetic and claims it is the best thing since sliced bread. Then you are pushing the envelope. 

 

Aren't these the same people who appreciate speakers and systems that are so accurate as to be annoying, like fingernails on a chalkboard? Then they  add distortion to the system, artificially through listneing to MQA files? My mind is reeling......

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

Does this mean you are finally nerded out?

 

Or did you skip the Lutefisk for some reason?

 

Please - it is walleye cheeks......

[botrytis]

13 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

The technical discussion has kept the thread going... not really the thread title so much... in my opinion.

 

 

Well, MQA needs cash infusion - they can't continue to take money from investors. Right now MQA is not producing cash. If this continues, they will burn the good will investors have towards them.

 

This thread helps to funnel real information about MQA out to the world. Jes saying.

[botrytis]

22 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

This thread invites excessive navel gazing but as far as getting information out to the world or the world outside this web site even being aware of this thread, not so much. Jes saying.

 

Not true. If the information is only partly true in this thread (which I believe is 100% true but playing Devil's Advocate), it should still give audiophiles pause to think. Does one really want extra noise in high res files (and these files are only part high res because they are produced from them and that is it).

[botrytis]

10 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

I’m prepared to stipulate that the information in this thread is 100% true but believe you are grossly overestimating the number of audiophiles around the world who are aware of it. 

 

I think as others start to understand the ramifications of MQA, there will eventually be louder and louder voices. I don't care one wit about MQA, either way. I do not want it to be the only choice out there.

 

If you like MQA, go at it. Just leave me and my FLAC files alone.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, rickca said:

Can one of our Chinese AS users tell us whether Xiami is popular among Chinese music streaming consumers?  Or is it insignificant, like TIDAL vs Spotify?

 

Here is some information I found on Billboard:

 

Xiami Music was founded in 2008 and acquired by the Alibaba Group in 2013. User numbers are not publicly available. The biggest digital music services in China are QQ Music, Kugou, Kuwo and WeSing, all owned by tech giant Tencent Music Entertainment Group. Collectively those four services have more than 800 million users, says Tencent.

NetEase Cloud Music, operated by Chinese internet company NetEase, is another of the region's biggest music platforms and claims to have more than 600 million registered users.

 

Note also that Tencent is negotiating to buy 10% of UMG with a one-year option to double its stake.

 

Like the Chinese are allowed to view content from the rest of the world. Just like Russia, who is setting up their own DNS system to not allow their citizens to see content outside the US.

 

OK, no more politics - SORRY.

[botrytis]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Kashmir

 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 All of us would love this, but it should be blatantly obvious that the Record Companies will continue to resist this, and their  reasoning is  that the ability to copy and re distribute these recordings without some kind of safeguard will reduce their revenue.

I would  much prefer a permanent personal copy of a high res album with some kind of copy protection, over a dumbed down version such as MQA , or no Master quality recording access at all.

 

 

Then Bandcamp should be gone after first - since so many groups are using that now.

[botrytis]