MQA is Vaporware

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Sort of like this forum where as soon as @mansr sez or @Archimago sez there can be no other truth...

Apparently you don't read all the forum....they have definitely been disagreed with, and more than once. 

But you do realize there's a difference between disagreeing about opinions/interpretations/subjective experiences and disagreeing about facts and measurements, don't you? 

[Paul R]

The biggest lies ever told were full of “facts” and “measurements” - and of course were justified as saving ignorant <fill in the blank> people from the nefarious other  <fill in the blank> people. 

 

That isn’t saying that mansr or archimago are doing anything with nefarious intentions. But blind belief in anything is usually a bad thing for this hobby. See above. 

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Even trying to correct a easily technically provable error is sometimes not easy or helpful unless it is possible to relate to common sense and day-to-day usage. *I believe that pushing the facts about every little misunderstanding isn't a good thing...  When there IS an ongoing discussion, an actual bit of technical accuracy CAN be helpful -- I hope 🙂.  I wish more people with actual knowledge were more easily accessible.   Better access to experts in specific fields could have been incredibly helpful for some of my recent misconceptions, but information is sometimes difficult to find.

 

Some issues, like MQA, bother/worry me personally because I want to maintain my own access to good quality, unmolested, non-DRM music.  I also worry about the rest of the world -- working effectively full time for years to learn enough about a specific field that will help 'OLD' (1960s through 1990s) music quality/availability in the future.  There IS altruism in the world, and I know of maybe 2 or 3 people working very hard, and others contributing from time-to-time in the somewhat altruistic effort. (Common participants to this forum and some fairly well known professional names have helped the effort.)  My own project is NOT limited to (for example) DolbyA at all, and requires resurrecting a lot of difficult to find long-lost common knowledge (and also some hidden know-how.)  I have been a big-time victim of misconception -- much of it due to my own resolvable limitations.  It has taken a LONG time to get some kinds of accurate information.

 

Can you 'save' people from totally misguided ideas?  My answer is -- maybe, if the idea is important enough, but otherwise it is best just to let-go of any kind of 'crusade' (no religious intent for the usage) to correct everything.  This is a hobby for most people -- a little bit of misunderstanding is perfectly fine :-). 

 

Frankly, I wish MORE people who can contribute actual technical facts could find a way (and the time) to discuss things without being perceived as being know-it-alls or stir controversy.  Gaining access to real information, beyond what is currently available, has been troublesome in my current project.  Some actual experts DO demure.   Maybe the most difficult problem for those of us who don' t know everything -- trying to find people who understand their own limitations, and who TRY to avoid passing on their own possible misconceptions.

 

Audio/recording/etc can be very technical -- and there sometimes might be a tension between the artistic temperament and the kind of knowledge needed to truly understand what is going on.  I guess - most important -- remember the goal.  Participating in the hobby can required a very different mindset than the technical knowledge needed to implement the tools of the hobby.  It is easy to wrongly assume that 'understanding the use' is the same as 'understanding the supporting technology'.  They are NOT the same things.

 

John

 

 

Well said John. 

 

You seem to have the the ability to think about a subject, apply your knowledge and experience, and come to a conclusion. Always being willing to re-examine a conclusion when new information becomes available. That is rare - most people want “the” answer and then not to be bothered thinking about it anymore. 

 

Audiophiles in general are exceptions to that rule, at least within the hobby. Most audiophiles are generally willing to accept that they should keep looking at new ideas, products, and technology. Something might sound better to them, and that is where a lot of the fun is in the hobby of course. And if it isn’t fun, why bother with it? That wonderful attitude does make us rather uniquely vulnerable to hucksters though, at least to, some degree. 

 

Religious crusades always  make me nervous. Even if I don’t see it, I am pretty certain someone is out to make money off any crusade, no matter how innocent it may appear. 

[Fast and Bulbous]

11 minutes ago, Paul R said:

The biggest lies ever told were full of “facts” and “measurements” - and of course were justified as saving ignorant <fill in the blank> people from the nefarious other  <fill in the blank> people. 

 

That isn’t saying that mansr or archimago are doing anything with nefarious intentions. But blind belief in anything is usually a bad thing for this hobby. See above. 

 

Agreed. We are presented with certainties that are not real - they are false certainties. Is everywhere these days, from politics, to news, to social issues. To tech and hi-fi. 

[crenca]

4 hours ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Could not agree more. Have observed BS and co for a long time. Used to be a Meridian customer back in the MCD Pro days and found that to be a really good product, feeding an SP-8 and then active Meridian speakers. Walked away from Meridian a long time ago when it lost its way for me. And have watched this community here since it formed.

 

Learning about how innovations become successful - or not - is something that I feel is really important to get to grips with MQA and what is happening. I have done that for a long time, working in industries for which such knowledge is vital for success. Looking at MQA through that lens, the moves made by MQA - not the tech moves, the strategy moves - have always looked like a coordinated attempt to become the default, proprietary codex in overall infrastructure. Where revenue flows back from every angle to MQA, record companies solve their rights problems and hardware manufacturers that do not have a really good digital filter have that problem solved in return for their loyalty.  For me, every move points to that. And from BS learning from MLP and how it got to the infrastructure position alright, but not the revenue streams. And whether anyone here likes it or not, MQA has been successful in getting some in the audiophile community to advocate it. Any successful ploy will mean changing bevahior as the innovation progresses. Again MQA has done that. There is cunning and seeming inconsistency in these things. 

 

Also for me, so that others here do not jump on me with crass projections, assumptions and comments as a few have done so far,  I dread MQA success as I dreaded VHS winning over Betamax - but it could be seen coming. JVC's strategy out manoeuvred Sony's superior tech hands down.  MQA is a tech ploy that may or may not be good enough to win that infrastructure position with the strategy being deployed. The relationships formed, the seeming lock in with shares and licencing, the NDAs and opacity of the resulting communications, the advocacy by very visible "authorities" all point that way for me. 

 

MQA is a discontinuous innovation - one where the customer has to change their behaviour to get the benefit of the innovation. But who is the customer for that innovation? It isn't the highly informed discerning minority - that is now proven, and they will not change because they are discerning and will only change if by adopting the new they discern something of sufficient benefit to do so.   It ain't there for them / us. They are not needed for success as long as a few will advocate. And they will and they have and they do.  As for all the nonsense of using MP3 as the codec with which to compare MQA in the early dems, that was insulting. 

 

Argue the toss about the tech if you still want to - for me that argument was over a long time ago with objective data from key assessors and subjective insight of discerning review. 

 

My earnest hope is that it will all fail, but remember VHS... And it has some inertia in the "industry" and seemingly has financial resources to play a long game. 

 

I await September with interest.

 

 

Well stated.  I and others disagree with you as to the nature of the relationship of "the tech" with "the strategy" and the Audiofile market, and thus the culpability of audio gurus/MQA architects such as Peter Craven, Bob Stuart, and their useful idiots such as Robert Harley, John Atkinson, and the like.

 

Your absolutely right about the "cunning" use of men like Atkinson by Craven and others.  Stuart certainly knew how to make Audiophiledom go where he wanted it go.  

 

At the end of the day however, MQA is not a "tech ploy" really, it is a DRM play (which is really a market play) as Robert Harley (somewhat inadvertently - certainly naively) explained to us at the beginning.

[crenca]

14 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I know that my little anecdote wasn't all that 'short', but I am trying to explain that it is very tricky to find someone who really does give an accurate technical opinion all of the time.  Best that one can do -- listen to more than just a few experts with differing agendas, and then use common sense.  No-one is immune to both sides of the problem.

 

John

 

 

Well stated.  The informed consumer "cloud sources" several "experts", cross checks them with other "experts", etc.  There is no one ring expert to rule them all...

[Fast and Bulbous]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well stated.  I and others disagree with you as to the nature of the relationship of "the tech" with "the strategy" and the Audiofile market, and thus the culpability of audio gurus/MQA architects such as Peter Craven, Bob Stuart, and their useful idiots such as Robert Harley, John Atkinson, and the like.

 

Your absolutely right about the "cunning" use of men like Atkinson by Craven and others.  Stuart certainly knew how to make Audiophiledom go where he wanted it go.  

 

At the end of the day however, MQA is not a "tech ploy" really, it is a DRM play (which is really a market play) as Robert Harley (somewhat inadvertently - certainly naively) explained to us at the beginning.

IMHO, of course it is a DRM play. The tech is a way of delivering that, along with licence revenues and lock in of hardware manufacturers and record companies. As long as the tech is "good enough" to pass muster for the mass market it will serve the strategy.

 

As is often said in systems thinking and cybernetics, "The purpose of a system is what it does", not what it says it is doing. I would think all of the plays with selected actors will almost certainly have been pre-thought through. If you look at approaches like Moore's The Chasm and Christensen's Disruptive Innovation all of the moves, relationships, messaging fit in place. That seems unlikely to be co-incidence. I do not know for sure, but it looks to me like BS and Co know this stuff well enough, or somehow they have put their strategy together by chance to align with these ideas, which themselves are used by owners / originators of successful innovations. The tech is a means to an end, is very rarely the end in itself. That would need full alignment between intent and actual purpose. I do know (of) some very good people in the audio industry and others where such espoused and actual intent do fully align. 

As for "useful idiots" that would seem to assume unwitting agency on their part. Which is fully possible, is a key ploy when those steeped in such strategic thinking approach these scenarios. Some will not be unwitting though...

 

The key provocation here is around in what domain and by what means are the decisions made that will, ultimately, produced "success" or "failure". Have lost count of the times I have seen the best tech lose to inferior tech - or failed to win the infrastructure race. And also where second best tech dominates because of "better" strategic thinking. That is often because the key decisions are not from the domain of the tech, but from how to take it to market. And when. And With whom. And in what sequence. 

 

As I say, for me the tech argument against MQA was figured out some time ago. 

[botrytis]

I have tried, on other forums, to point out all the information I gleaned from reading this thread and was delineated as a troll. I guess some want to be in blissful ignorance but, I do not. 

 

I do spend a lot of time, at work, reading patents so I can determine was is real and what is not, for future research. Patents do not have to be actually usable. All it has to do a point out a unique tech or process. This way they CYA.

 

I think MQA is one of those patents. I mean it is not high-res. It changes the actual sound of the file, The only thing that is real is the built-in DRM. The rest of the tech is just there as window treatments.

[Fast and Bulbous]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I have tried, on other forums, to point out all the information I gleaned from reading this thread and was delineated as a troll. I guess some want to be in blissful ignorance but, I do not. 

 

I do spend a lot of time, at work, reading patents so I can determine was is real and what is not, for future research. Patents do not have to be actually usable. All it has to do a point out a unique tech or process. This way they CYA.

 

I think MQA is one of those patents. I mean it is not high-res. It changes the actual sound of the file, The only thing that is real is the built-in DRM. The rest of the tech is just there as window treatments.

That aligns with what I am saying. Fully. If it really was as they say, then just dem it and let people decide and it would speak for itself. Their strategic thinking around it and ability to implement are core here. Looks like they have learned that well over the years. 

 

[daverich4]

 

Deleted

 

[rando]

6 hours ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

As for all the nonsense of using MP3 as the codec with which to compare MQA in the early dems, that was insulting.

 

Seems a pretty straightforward comparison between a decades old lossy format and a new improved lossy format.  

 

Which very few here or elsewhere would have problem being confronted with in a non-DRM prepped state that didn't also require manufacturers to give Bob access to their technical designs and place his own code inside, etc. 

 

Because in any guise it is a consumer replacement for mp3.  Pardon, an overwrought attempt to replace mp3 in the minds of consumers with a premium/luxury/upscale format.

 

 

[daverich4]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

 

But you do realize there's a difference between disagreeing about opinions/interpretations/subjective experiences and disagreeing about facts and measurements, don't you? 

 

Is there a difference? Not when the facts and measurements presented by the authorities on this site are the final word on any subject and facts and measurements presented by those outside the inner circle here are dismissed as shills and trolls. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

measurements presented by those outside the inner circle here are dismissed as shills and trolls.

Where are those measurements?

[KeenObserver]

When there are diametrically opposed positions that cannot both be true, there can be no such thing as "alternate truths".  If one is true, the other is false.

I tend to have faith in scientists that use established scientific methodology and come to conclusions based on accepted scientific principals.  When a number of them independently come to the same conclusion that MQA's claims are bogus,  I tend to believe them.

[KeenObserver]

No matter how many times and ways MQA supporters spew BS,  there will be people that come forth and tell the truth.  The emperor has no clothes.

 

The bottom line is that MQA is no good for the music consumer.  The music consumer should shun MQA like the plague!

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

The biggest lies ever told were full of “facts” and “measurements” - and of course were justified as saving ignorant <fill in the blank> people from the nefarious other  <fill in the blank> people. 

 

That isn’t saying that mansr or archimago are doing anything with nefarious intentions. But blind belief in anything is usually a bad thing for this hobby. See above. 

 

Red herring argument. Either the measurements are correct or not. People can differ in the interpretation of those measurements or the understanding of their importance. 

Where is there “blind belief”? If you can show their measurements are incorrect, show it. 

Lots of people on this site  have said they don’t think various measurements are definitive. That’s their opinion and their right. 
Daverich’s vague accusations are just that. People aren’t called “shills and trolls” because they present “facts and measurements” that differ. They are called shills ad trolls when their positions are contradicted by the measurements and they have no reasonable alternative explanation, nor alternative “facts and measurements”. Alternative opinions without showing a basis for them aren’t the same as alternative “facts and measurements”.

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

I do spend a lot of time, at work, reading patents so I can determine was is real and what is not, for future research. Patents do not have to be actually usable. All it has to do a point out a unique tech or process. This way they CYA.

 

Your patent comment really hits home with me.  The Sony DolbyA patent is a near perfect example of a CYA patent.  I believe that it is possible that it is maintained simply to benefit from someone else's completion of the project.  They patented a key part of an obvious DolbyA implementation (making the feedback straightforward parametric instead of the impossible-in-DSP-land audio feedback scheme as in DolbyA HW.)  Even though their patent is worse than inadequate to implement a DolbyA (the most important characteristics of DolbyA are ignored), they thought that they could cause almost any good implementation to infringe, therefore benefit from someone else's work.  Some of the 'facts' as stated in the patent are simply 100% wrong, yet enough is accurate that it is likely to convince a judge about the relevence of the patent.  Patents like that suck -- I dont even think that it is possible to make a DolbyA decoder sound good even using the architecture in the patent -- but it sure *LOOKS* good. (US 5,907,623).  The current expiration is 'fee related', but I'd suspect that they could resurrect it pretty quickly.  Also, there are patents like US6807278, which are similar, but my project doesn't infringe that at all either!!!

If starting with a technique similar to the way that the patents describe, a developer would be very susceptable to lock-in.  Luckily, for my own sanity, I purposefully forgot the Sony patents, and implemented using a VERY foreign technque that supports greater flexibility.  Patents aren't evil, but they can cause problems (and benefit holders of essentially garbage patents.)

John

[John Dyson]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Red herring argument. Either the measurements are correct or not. People can differ in the interpretation of those measurements or the understanding of their importance. 

Where is there “blind belief”? If you can show their measurements are incorrect, show it. 

Lots of people on this site  have said they don’t think various measurements are definitive. That’s their opinion and their right. 
Daverich’s vague accusations are just that. People aren’t called “shills and trolls” because they present “facts and measurements” that differ. They are called shills ad trolls when their positions are contradicted by the measurements and they have no reasonable alternative explanation, nor alternative “facts and measurements”. Alternative opinions without showing a basis for them aren’t the same as alternative “facts and measurements”.

I don't think that most people argue that when (AS AN EXAMPLE):  there is a recording that has signal at up to maybe 40kHz -- that the signal isn't there.  It is more that there can be interpretations if the signal is useful...  Sometimes a signal can be coherent from some other signal device, sometimes a signal can be an IMD splat from an NR system, sometimes the signal can actually be audio from a microphone.  Secondarily, there are issues about the actual quality or useful signal level of the 40kHz signal, and most importantly -- can anyone detect that signal as directly being a part of 'music'.

 

The discussions are more fine than a simple disagreement about specific facts.  One problem with these discussions happens because it can be a little tricky to separate out the aspects of the discussion and not confuse them.

 

Depending on agenda, the 'facts' can be somewhat convincingly interpreted in different ways.

 

Organizing the facts in a discussion can be tricky, and there seem to be a lot of traps and pitfalls when there are so many different weightings of the importance of the facts, let alone judging whether or not that the facts are accurate.

 

This problem associated with organizing the facts, understanding the ramifications, weighting the importance  ALONG with the emotional aspects conceptually reminds me of 'herding cats'. 

 

John

[Ralf11]

facts are established by experimentation - the question is whether or to what extent they apply outside the conditions of that experiment

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Is there a difference? Not when the facts and measurements presented by the authorities on this site are the final word on any subject and facts and measurements presented by those outside the inner circle here are dismissed as shills and trolls. 

 

Well, Archimago and other have shown their measurements and even critiqued their own process. We have SEEN NOTHING FROM THE MQA CROWD. Why is that? What do they have to hide?

 

I think the MQA crowd just repeating the same nonsense over and over is trolling. 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

I tend to have faith in scientists that use established scientific methodology and come to conclusions based on accepted scientific principals.  When a number of them independently come to the same conclusion that MQA's claims are bogus,  I tend to believe them.

 

Not meaning to be facetious but I wasn't aware that scientists had any research interest in MQA.

 

And why listen to only scientists?  What's wrong with engineering practitioners, for example?

[daverich4]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where are those measurements?

 

Do a search for Jim Austin and you’ll come up with any number of comments on the technical aspects of his articles in Stereophile, dismissing them as mere shilling. As well as for John Atkinson and others not members of the inner circle here. 

[KeenObserver]

18 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Do a search for Jim Austin and you’ll come up with any number of comments on the technical aspects of his articles in Stereophile, dismissing them as mere shilling. As well as for John Atkinson and others not members of the inner circle here. 

 

They are not my God.

 

I believe in science.

[KeenObserver]

32 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Not meaning to be facetious but I wasn't aware that scientists had any research interest in MQA.

 

And why listen to only scientists?  What's wrong with engineering practitioners, for example?

 

Also not being facetious, but are engineering practitioners not also scientists?

[mansr]

26 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Also not being facetious, but are engineering practitioners not also scientists?

Engineering is one part science and two parts black magic.