MQA is Vaporware

[Lee Scoggins]

30 minutes ago, rickca said:

I assume you know his last name is Putin.

 

Poutine is a delicious French-Canadian dish from my home and native land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine

 

Lol.  Russian-Canadian collusion?

[Lee Scoggins]

4 hours ago, SlimPickins said:

Following this thread over the holidays has been pure entertainment.

 

Until I have a chance a to spend time listening to MQA, i will consider it equal parts audio snake oil and P.T. Barnum.

 

Thumbs up to Knickerhawk. 

He moved the thread further in one post than Samuel T. Cogley, Fair Hedon, Dr. Tone and kumakuma have in the last 20+ pages.

Between Star Trek and Dungeons & Dragons, I think you guys have most of the names covered.

Before reading this thread, I assumed most of the CA posters were grown men.

 

Unlike the keyboard warriors listed above, at least Lee has the stones to post under his real name and photo.

 

Maybe some of you guys should spend more time on the People magazine forums.

Drama, finger pointing and snitching carry more weight over there.

 

Carry on.  I have more popcorn in the kettle.

 

With all the vitriol, the chance of laughs here have been slim and none...until Slim showed up.

 

Thanks Slim. Made my day.

[Lee Scoggins]

16 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Or, he seeks to promote and drive clicks to his own blog, right?

 

So he has a vested interest in posting under his real name.

 

Yes, that’s it!  Congrats you figured it out!

 

For every click PTA gets, I get $10.  Ten more pages of discussion and I can pay cash for that Miami Blue Porsche Cayman I’ve had my eye on.

[Lee Scoggins]

26 minutes ago, Indydan said:

I was looking at Mr. Scoggins' mini biography at PTA:

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/contributors/

 

Here is a copy paste of part of it:

 

"He was involved in the first high resolution recordings which eventually became the DVD-Audio format."

 

Now DVD-Audio uses MLP, Meridian lossless packaging as the format. Of course MLP was created by Bob Stuart at Meridian. I can't and will not claim Mr. Scoggins worked on MLP with Stuart, because the information is to vague to make such an assertion. 

 

If Mr. Scoggins is inclined, I am curious to know if he has worked with Bob Stuart in the past. 

 

I have not worked with Bob Stuart.  I was involved with early hirez at Chesky Records working Bob Katz and David Chesky in the early 90s.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Outstanding, but I was more pointing to the vanity aspect, and the notion of self importance and industry "fame" part and parcel of your constant name dropping to use just one example.

 

I think for a McKinsey consultant, this yearn to be considered some sort of recognized industry "player" is likely far more important to you than any tiny monetary consideration from PTA.

 

This is the way I look at my passion for good sound.  Everytime I meet someone involved in the industry I learn something new.  I like new ideas and innovation so that is what drives me.  The people at the highest level are driven as much or more by ideas than money.  And it seems the happiest people are building new things.

[Lee Scoggins]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

That's all fine. Our problem with you in this thread is that you seem to make judgements on MQA without any actual analysis ; rather you talk to people "involved in the industry" and then make a judgement based on your  "sense" of what is correct. There have been several substantive  technical objections raised here and elsewhere that you've ignored, and and then repeated your previously stated conclusions without taking them into account. 

 

Well sorry, you should be doing actual technical analysis to see if the claims  of people "in the industry" hold up. So far you've given no indication that you have either the inclination, theoretical understanding, or math skills to properly evaluate what you are hearing in your conversations.

 

As such, your conclusions are only personal impressions, and have little value for anyone other than yourself or others looking for a subjective "review"; unfortunately, a major audio mag is presenting them as if they are a true evalution/anlysis of MQA.

 

Firedog,

 

I've ignored some of the technical points simply because I am still researching the subject and don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides.  Remember, I have only published the article that deals with the business model and even on that I am doing more work.  The math is not a problem as that is what I am good at.  I build predictive models for a living and use AI algorithms.  If I had poor math skills I would not be able to do my job.  But I'm equally as good at evaluating business models and applying my critical listening skills.  And I have a background in making hirez recordings (PCM and DSD) so I know a few things about how all this works and what we can hear and what are some key considerations to good sound.

 

I think you and others are looking at MQA primarily through an engineering lens whereas I am trying to apply some problem solving skills developed from my consulting work to examine what the future of the business model is, ie. how likely is MQA to be successful.  So I do spend time on looking at who the MQA ecosystem involves in terms of companies and people.

 

We may have different opinions on MQA but I am going about it in a thoughtful manner.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Whatever the system, the recording was adequate to show the differences between MQA and other formats.

 

The reason i added the anecdote on the cables was that, in other peoples opinion, i was getting the wrong answer that cables do not make a difference. Same with MQA - i must keep trying until i like MQA.

 

I do not hear much difference between CD and 96kHz/24bit - i have some pure audio blu-ray discs.

 

People like MP3 instead of CD of the same album - because they are attuned to MP3 from the start - they think music sould sound like that.

 

If MQA was the only format that people have ever listened to, then they will think that it is the better format compared to CD, as an example.

 

MQA is different, not better.

 

When you know how fake the format is with regards to replacing information lost in the original recording - then it is a backward step in technology. Technically it is a very well engineered system, but from a engineering and consumer perspective in an attempt to attain better recordings, it is deficient.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

 

 

Shadders, 

 

What system do you listen to music on?

 

Lee

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

@Lee Scoggins, I feel you are being highly disingenuous here. You write that you've ignored the technical points because you are "still researching" and "don't wish to comment until I gain a deeper understanding and look at all sides." But that's not actually true, because your "Why MQA is good business" arguments have been based on an underlying assertion - often implicit, but sometimes explicit - about the technical benefits of MQA.

 

As @firedog, I, and numerous others have pointed out repeatedly, you're not actually ignoring the technical issues and questions about MQA. Rather, you're ignoring only the technical objections, and you repeat the claimed technical benefits claimed in MQA's PR materials.

 

The reason this is a problem is that your parroting of MQA's "the tech is just fine, nothing to see here folks" line allows you to equate what's good for MQA's business model with what's good for music consumers concerned about high quality sound. Your comments have made this equation over and over and over, and it's been pointed out to you over and over and over - and still you repeat the same conflation.

 

I find that behavior, and your apparent refusal to even acknowledge it let alone modify it, troubling. I'm all for free speech, but if you truly "don't wish to comment" until you've researched the technical issues, then how about not commenting in this thread until you've.... researched the technical issues?

 

This is a mischaracterization.  The good business arguments I have made are based on stakeholder buy-in leading to more music availability.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi Lee,

I use an Audiolab 8200AP as the preamp, a Cambridge Audio Azur 650A as the power amplifier, and self build Transmission Line 2-way speakers - floor standing, Volt BM220.8 bass/mid driver, and Seas H400 metal dome tweeter.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

What cables have you experimented with?

[Lee Scoggins]

35 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Lee,

I tried biwiring with 79 strand and mains cable, an expensive RCA/Phono cable - cost £80 (this is expensive for me).

I have never purchased "exotic" cables as electrically, QED 79 strand is optimum.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Once you get more experience with better cables, you will change your tune about the impact they can have on sound.

[Lee Scoggins]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

There's a lot more to maths than predictive models and business analytics. If Lee thinks being good at those things (for which we have only his word) will be of any help in understanding digital signal processing, he is being ignorant.  Moreover, making a few recordings is not the same as understanding the mathematics behind the formats. Using a hammer does not make you an expert in metallurgy.

 

I don’t disagree with much of this.  I am not an EE or DSP engineer.  But it’s also not correct to say I lack math skills as firedog said.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, Shadders said:

Hi Lee,

I understand transmission line theory, and electrical and electronic engineering too.

There is no such thing as a better cable. QED 79 strand has the best conductivity, one of the lowest inductance and capacitance per metre .

Some exotic cables have higher values, get rave reviews, but in essence they will attenuate the higher frequencies more, so you hear less than what the artist intended. But then, the difference is so small, you cannot detect it by ear. People think they can.

No cable company will ever state why and how their cables sound better scientifically - it is all subjective pseudo science. Why is that ?

Again, there is no better cable than QED 79 strand, only the belief that there is.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

You are showing your inexperience here.  We will have to agree to disagree.

[Lee Scoggins]

24 minutes ago, firedog said:

Lee, gotta say that I side with tmtomh here. You article basically showed you accepted the technical arguments for and about MQA b/c some "industry" people told you they were correct, and you had a predisposition to believe them. 

 

MQA's business model is irrelevant to the SQ and technical issues in their narrow sense, and those issues need to addressed separately from the business model.

 

As far as the business model, you keep telling us that MQA will make music more available, but haven't put up a single viable argument in which the term "standard Redbook or hi-res files" can't be substituted for "MQA files" in the streaming ecosystem. And please don't tell us "file size", because it has already been proven not to be an issue - i.e., FLAC files are actually smaller than the equivalent MQA  files and  contain MORE of the bits in the original 24/96 file. 

 

This shows that MQA isn't necessary for increased availability of quality files. And if it isn't, what's the real need/reason for the business model? Why are the labels backing it? 

I personally can't imagine any reason they'd do so that is actually good for consumers. Good for music selling corporations?  Yes. But not for us.

 

This shows an antiquated view of corporations.  Their must be some value for the consumer or it won’t sell.  The new world has the consumer having a lot of power.  For this to work well, there has to be good selection and good sound quality at a decent price.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, Shadders said:

Hi mansr,

It is relevant, since Lee (please correct me if i am wrong) is inferring that my system does not have the cables which will show that MQA is superior. Or something similar.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

I never said that.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

No, this shows your naive lack of understanding of what many modern corporations do. They often operate in markets with little real competition and are very happy to make money based on marketing designed to fool consumers and based on the fact that consumers often have neither the skills nor ability to find out what is really going on. They thrive on fake value instead of actual value. 

 

The drug industry and the industrial food giants are good examples of this. They often make their money by sophisticated hoodwinking of consumers and an ability to control pricing and influence markets. Do some reading about how food giants intentionally make food addictive and then tell me this isn't true. 

 

The same thing is going on with the MQA, the record labels and streaming. What is necessary here is real investigative journalism, the kind where actual analysis is done and the industry marketing isn't accepted at face value. Unfortunately, other than on forums like this one, it doesn't seem to be happening.

 

 

 

Firedog, I am well aware of monopolistic pricing but given the power the customer has these days the consumer still has a choice not to spend money on music if he/she perceives it to be a poor value.  So even the four major labels will have to be careful, imo, to create something perceived to be of value.

 

I will concede that the majors may consider the MQA brand to add some buzz to the marketing and perceived value, even if many here would view it as a negative.

 

The longer-term problem revolved around how the artists gets paid.  It seems that artists getting paid peanuts by streaming services like they are under the current scenario is untenable for the long term.

 

Also, another area we have not considered in-depth are the streaming services.  If MQA is to succeed long-term, I believe it may still need to sign up Apple, youtube, or both.  Either would probably provide enough volume to generate lots of cash flow.

[Lee Scoggins]

54 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You're really stretching it.

 

If this is the case, yes banning is appropriate. I don't have any evidence to suggest this is the case, other than extremely circumstantial work hours.

 

Thanks Chris.  For all the abuse I am getting here, I sometimes wish I was getting paid.  I need to fund those Alexia 2s somehow.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Didn't you work with/for them?

 

How's your connection with the industry nowadays?

 

I did.  Been friends with these folks for a couple of decades.

 

Lots of connections with the music and audio industry.  Mostly the result of my writing and going to audio shows and working on recordings.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

There are only three now.

 

 

Including the indie consortium Merlin who is now under contract with MQA.

[Lee Scoggins]

27 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I wouldn't consider Merlin to be a recording label.

 

It performs as one on some duties.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

I have to wonder how successful HDTracks really is. High rez is such a small segment of music sales.

 

The Cheskys are millionaires.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

 

I understand, but those are your pain points and concerns with the format based on your personal preferences and personal investment in equipment, knowledge, content, etc. For me, MQA has been nothing but a "free" Tidal upgrade and a welcome improvement to my personal music playback enjoyment. I think the jury is still very much out with respect to how much, if any, of a "tax" will be imposed by MQA as well as who's going to end up paying that tax.

 

Part of the tax may get paid by mastering costs going down too.

[Lee Scoggins]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Meridian (Audio) Millionaires?

 

No.  They made their money on CDs and downloads.

[Lee Scoggins]

15 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

Well, the CD versions are working now (at least for me). I'm not sure it's quite time to panic yet. Most of the Petty/Heartbreakers albums are available in both versions. A few are CD only and a few are MQA only (including the first). I don't see any particular pattern there and I haven't personally noticed CD versions disappearing as soon as MQA versions are released but I must confess that I haven't paid attention either. 

 

Out of curiosity, have you done any blinded A/B testing of MQA vs CD playback run through a non-MQA dac? I couldn't detect anything sighted and the couple of tracks I tried blinded yielded nothing either. If you've successfully identified an audible difference, I'd love to hear more. What album? What was it that you were hearing that allowed you to differentiate? Thanks.

 

Not only that, much of the Petty catalog is available in hirez so so much for concerns about master tape quality getting out.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

Reading Lee’s comments over at SHF, I must say as far as I am concerned, that once you trot out you can’t hear the improvement because your system is not resolving enough, you’ve lost the argument. It’s like arguing my system is better because it costs more. That attitude just turns me off in this hobby. While there is occasionally some good stuff in Stereophile and TAS, most of the other on line only sites are not worth reading. Ever notice how their show reports read like ad copy? I learn far more on forums than any of these sites. No wonder this hobby is shrinking.

 

Please stop taking things out of context. This was in response to Agitator claiming that he cannot hear differences between cables.

 

And it is also established that higher resolving systems do highlight differences from equipment changes as well as format differences, all else being equal.

[Lee Scoggins]

It's become a bit distracting jumping between forums on this subject, so I am posting mostly on Hoffman for now.