MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

Now that everyone, even MQA,  has agreed that MQA is lossy, we should understand that a lossy system is, of itself, DRM.  Creating a lossy system is the first step in creating a DRM system, irregardless of whether further DRM processes built into the system have been implemented already.  Arguing that DRM has not been implemented YET is a specious argument.

Owners of intellectual property have a right to protect their property.  But MQA and the majors should not piss on the music consumer and tell them it's raining.

MQA offers studios a DRM system that, if implemented, will create substantial wealth for MQA and will be paid for by the music consumer.  How could the studios not want to join with MQA in fleecing the consumer.

This whole MQA fiasco has the smell of the Sony rootkit fiasco.

The music consumer needs to protect themselves and shun any aspect of MQA!

[KeenObserver]

Lee's turn again.

[KeenObserver]

5 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

 Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. MP3’s which are lossy, don’t have DRM built into them yet SACD’s which aren’t lossy, do. What does lossy or not have to do with DRM?

 

I thought that was self evident.  If it is lossy,  it cannot be reconstituted back to the original.

[KeenObserver]

The first step in DRM is controlling access to your masters.  If you can reconstitute mp3's back to the original masters, then you have succeeded in solving the answer.

If you have distributed a lossy version of of an album, you can always hold out that carrot that there is a better version possible.  If you distribute a crippled version of an album,  then you can resell that version in the future.

If MQA became the standard,  you can be guaranteed that someone in the future would point out that MQA is lossy and that a better version is available.

[KeenObserver]

Every time I log back on it is the same circular BS over and over again.

 

It's like a Monte Python skit:

 

MQA is lossless

No it's not

Yes it is

No it's not

It's perceptually lossless

What?

Look, there's bigfoot!

 

The MQA shills must figure people will just get sick of it and say:  "All right! Just take all my money and give me the crippled recordings!  Just shut up"!

[KeenObserver]

33 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

On point #2, would the chart be able to show the timing correction that MQA brings?  I think you would need more than noise vs. FR.

 

Look! There's bigfoot!

[KeenObserver]

"The whole argument about loosing access to your music is, I think, more than a it of a straw man argument. If MQA were to go away, then their code would be reversed engineered almost overnight. If they try to lock down the music, bypasses around the DRM / Copy Protection will be available in very little time as well. We certainly have DIVX encoders today, and that was Circuit City pulling almost the same thing as MQA. "

 

The majors would still have a vested interest in it.  Do you think they would want to sell you their catalog all over again?

[KeenObserver]

How about this:  Skip MQA altogether!  Then all that is moot.

[KeenObserver]

I'm glad I put on my hip boots before I logged on today.  The BS is running deep.

 

Mr. Quint is again complaining about rude people.  These terrible people are pointing out the flaws in MQA! How awful!  People should just accept MQA and let them have their way with us!  Bob S is a wonderful man and will be your daddy.

 

Lee is running the usual MQA playbook.  The current buzzword is: " The artist will benefit".  Honest.  If we implement MQA everything will be puppy dogs and rainbows for the artist!  I have to wonder if Lee is real or if he is just AI on a computer.  I find it hard to believe that anyone can spend as much time on web sites prozelitizing MQA as Lee and still hold a full time job!  Way to go Lee!

 

And Paul is still posting his voluminous train of thought ramblings, each of which seems to contradict the one before.  The general gist I get from them is that MQA,  as it is implemented now, is a stinking, rotten piece of garbage that completely screws the music consumer, but it has potential!

[KeenObserver]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

To be fair to Paul, he also said that we should stop worrying about MQA because there will always be alternative sources of music available such as street musicians hawking their self-produced CDs out of their guitar cases.  

 

I know someone with a nose flute!  When I can no longer access my music,  I can go over to their house!

[KeenObserver]

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

I don't care what anyone says about you Keen, you have potential 😋

 

No kidding?  What are they saying about me?  I have feelings, you know.

[KeenObserver]

I'm still going through all these posts.  I find it helps my perspective if every time someone mentions the MQA "ecosystem",  I substitute "septic system".

[KeenObserver]

33 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

I appreciate the cogent and measured response, Chris. The continued evolution of your approach to the ultimate hot-button topic in audio makes sense to me and and reflects both open-mindedness and principle.

 

We have, I think, explored thoroughly the issue that matters to me, namely the way that audiophiles speak to one another in the public space. No matter how many times I say so, a small core of Vaporware posters can't get their heads around the idea that MQA really isn't of great importance to me—though I have learned a good deal here, even from the forum participants who detest me and my kind. I had, indeed, read Jud's post and found to be a concise, understandable, and reasonable summation of what's wrong with MQA. And I think that Lee S (anyone who thinks he has a "thin skin" is not a very good observer; "glutton for punishment" is more like it) has kept front and center the positions of MQA, Inc. In both cases, all the arguments on both sides were quite familiar—these are two entrenched constituencies. If Lee "regurgitates"—well, so do the Vaporware warriors when they get going on MQA-as-a-lossy-format or a MQA-is -DRM. That's not to say that they're not right and Lee is wrong—just that the positions they represent ossified about 400 pages ago on this epic thread, and I do wonder if Rt66indierock will see fit to shut it down before too much longer. There's so much more to talk about.

 

Paul's perspective was really very helpful, enlivening this forum in a positive way for the first time in a while—probably since the time that Archimago was most active here.  I've also noted that at least a few AS members have surfaced who are interested in talking to each other rather than at each other.

 

I look forward to saying hello to any and all of my AS friends and detractors at AXPONA, where I'll be covering lower-priced loudspeakers for my magazine. I'll be the guy with the armed guard. Armed Old Guard, that is...

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

 

 

Look!  There's Bigfoot!

[KeenObserver]

Closing down this thread will not stop the MQA postings.  They would only pop up on new threads.  The product placement specialists from the promotional companies will still be posting their BS "reviews" of MQA.  The cycle will continue ad infinitum or until MQA is dead.

[KeenObserver]

And I'll add this: Unless the MQA critics can be silenced.

[KeenObserver]

47 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I think it's kind of telling that Mr. Quint, even though he says again and again that he really doesn't care about MQA, wants the one thread that is clearly the thorn in the backside of MQA to be shut down.

 

Mr. Quint very "politely" suggested that a poster on this thread was in fact someone who had been scratched.  His intent was to get that person thrown off this site.  Mr. Quint is very "politely" trying to shut down MQA criticism.

Mr. Quint is in a very difficult position.  His magazine has gone all in on MQA and he has to play out the hand.

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Not really.  You have compact files sizes as well which is important to streaming services.  Also, the MQA deblurring filters are not apodizing filters as I originally thought.  They are a different filter it turns out.

 

The reason I prefer the MQA filters is that it sounds more like live classical and jazz acoustic music which I record.

 

MQA is not the same as someone adding EQ.  It's correcting for problems in the conversion and that gets the final result closer to the live event that was recorded.

 

So you wind up with a few benefits:  

 

1.  Hirez files with no losses in the audible range

2.  Compact file size and business model advantages via a premium tier

3.  Sound improvements via the deblurring filters.

 

In your opinion.

[KeenObserver]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I have my doubts on the veracity of this statement.  The Peter McGrath demo files clearly show the benefits of the MQA encoding.  It's not subtle but quite material.  I've repeated it on several systems including my own system.  Everything about the MQA files is better from timbre of the instruments to soundstaging to room tone.

 

It sounds like your mind was made up before the demo.

 

In your opinion.

[KeenObserver]

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Paul, I talked to two different streaming services executives and they told me that the size of the file does matter and they do have issues at scale.  So it's hard for me to take your word for it based on this research.

 

As for what the MQA team should do, they did share a lot of information with Chris from Day 1 including the lengthy Q&A from Bob Stuart.  But they feel there is not a fair debate to be had on this forum so they are ignoring it.

 

Translated from Lee speak to normal speak: MQA does not care to have AS expose the truth about MQA.

 

MQA prefers to have forums repeat the buzzwords and talking points that MQA provides.

They prefer blogs that put out MQA press releases as editorial content.

They prefer forums that are incapable of critical thinking.

[KeenObserver]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

They usually release white papers at AES meetings.

 

Scott paper that gets flushed down the MQA "ecosystem".

[KeenObserver]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

No.  That would be difficult to get evidence for since it is a change in behavior in the future.  But the label people I have spoken to recognize that paying the artists more is required for the system to be healthy.

 

Thank God I left my hip boots on!

[KeenObserver]

The whole problem with this MQA mess is that the whole cycle of BS just starts over again.  MQA has not been deterred in trying to implement their control over the music industry.  If left unanswered,  will MQA implement their plan?

MQA will ultimately levy a major "tax" on all aspects of the music industry which will in the end be paid for by the music consumer.  The music consumer gets nothing for his money except a crippled music system and DRM.  The music consumer gets screwed.  Does the music consumer lay down and take it?  Does MQA's BS go unanswered?

There are knowledgeable people that understand what MQA is trying to do.  There are many more that believe and espouse the MQA BS.

[KeenObserver]

6 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Not only has that always been the case via the site's rules, but I'm at a loss to identify this supposed preponderance of attacks and the like. Who was called ignorant and when?

 

I must have missed something.

 

I believe he is referring to the person that posted this:

 

"Your actions certainly suggest you and a few others here definitely have an agenda.  I wish you well, but doing bad things like you are doing will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.  That isn't a threat by the way, just a prediction. 

 

Have a nice life. "

[KeenObserver]

Ultimately it is not being pro or con,  it is being truthful.

[KeenObserver]

While it is not on the scale of evil empires, MQA proposes to place a substantial burden on the music consumer.

So I think, perhaps not on a grand scale, but the following applies, nevertheless:

 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

Edmund Burke