MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Examine that from the other way around Danny. 

 

It is is proven that MQA is not a technically superior format than say, flac based high res 24/96k. 

 

So why do some people prefer the sound of a MQA file?

 

There are conspiracy theories and other even more unlikely theories floating around, but the simple and most logical reason they prefer the sound of a MQA file is that something is causing MQA files to sound better to them.  MQA is not going to do the research to explain why - they do not have to prove it sounds better, because people are agreeing with them.  And they might harm themselves with the results, besides being difficult and expensive to do.

 

Nobody here wants to do the research, because it is hard, expensive, and could possibly help MQA. The reason might turn out to be more of a legal or ethical problem than a technical one anyway. 

 

The arguments about the audio press press are in large part totally unjustified, IMNSHO. YMMV, etc.

 

 

If you rolled dog feces in batter and deep fried it, someone eventually would say they like it.  Doesn't mean that everyone would like it.

 

If enough people listened to MQA, someone would eventually say that they like it.  Doesn't mean that I would want to cede control of the music chain to MQA.

[Ralf11]

why do some people say that some people prefer the sound of MQA without pointing to a valid listening test?

[Ralf11]

Those with the least understanding of science oppose it the most and also think they know the most

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/upshot/health-facts-importance-persuasion.html

[Hugo9000]

47 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Hi John. 

 

DRM is a concern, but mostly it is a blue herring. I can not think of any DRM system that was not swiftly bypassed the moment it became a nuisanice. Might be one, but I seriously doubt MQA would be that example. 

 

 

[kumakuma]

53 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Hi John. 

 

DRM is a concern, but mostly it is a blue herring. I can not think of any DRM system that was not swiftly bypassed the moment it became a nuisanice. Might be one, but I seriously doubt MQA would be that example. 

 

Putting loaded terms like "DRM" aside, I am confused why you seem to be okay with having music released in a lossy, proprietary format that limits consumer's ability to do what they want with the music they buy.

 

Up until recently, I would have put you more in this camp:

 

 

[firedog]

45 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Examine that from the other way around Danny. 

 

It is is proven that MQA is not a technically superior format than say, flac based high res 24/96k. 

 

So why do some people prefer the sound of a MQA file?

 

There are conspiracy theories and other even more unlikely theories floating around, but the simple and most logical reason they prefer the sound of a MQA file is that something is causing MQA files to sound better to them.  MQA is not going to do the research to explain why - they do not have to prove it sounds better, because people are agreeing with them.  And they might harm themselves with the results, besides being difficult and expensive to do.

 

Nobody here wants to do the research, because it is hard, expensive, and could possibly help MQA. The reason might turn out to be more of a legal or ethical problem than a technical one anyway. 

 

The arguments about the audio press press are in large part totally unjustified, IMNSHO. YMMV, etc.

 

Lots of things "sound better" to some people in audio - and lots of them can be shown to have increased jitter/disortion. mp3 also "sounds better to lots of people. MQA makes extravagant claims - they have the burden of proof of showing there is something other than sighted comparisons and expectation bias to their claims. 

And you keep saying "people are agreeing with them" - as if there's some vast number there. I've got news for you - a fraction of one percent of the population has heard an MQA file, and only a fraction of those think it sounds better-if they are paying any attention at all. 

Nobody is doing the research because it's time consuming and expensive - even if you truly don't care about the outcome and aren't afraid of the results.
I still say that if MQA truly believed in their product, they'd be the first to pay for a study: Good results-marketing and PR coup for them; bad results - they bury it. Happens all the time in commerce. It's highly suspicious that they've done nothing of the sort, and that all their demonstrations at audio shows are highly curated and controlled. 

[firedog]

38 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

why do some people say that some people prefer the sound of MQA without pointing to a valid listening test?

"Preference" is an opinion  or taste, not a fact. If people listen to it and say they prefer it, they do. Valid listening tests only show if their preference is based on some kind of bias. If I say I prefer Coke to Pepsi, do you demand I do a valid taste test to prove my results?

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Examine that from the other way around Danny. 

 

It is is proven that MQA is not a technically superior format than say, flac based high res 24/96k. 

 

So why do some people prefer the sound of a MQA file?

 

There are conspiracy theories and other even more unlikely theories floating around, but the simple and most logical reason they prefer the sound of a MQA file is that something is causing MQA files to sound better to them.  MQA is not going to do the research to explain why - they do not have to prove it sounds better, because people are agreeing with them.  And they might harm themselves with the results, besides being difficult and expensive to do.

 

Nobody here wants to do the research, because it is hard, expensive, and could possibly help MQA. The reason might turn out to be more of a legal or ethical problem than a technical one anyway. 

 

The arguments about the audio press press are in large part totally unjustified, IMNSHO. YMMV, etc.

 

 

It is the same problem with people who are Anti-vaxxers. It is the fact they made a decision and then by that very nature feel defensive or even hostile to people who show them they are wrong. It is a known problem with humans and how we collect information.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744023623/when-it-comes-to-vaccines-and-autism-why-is-it-hard-to-refute-misinformation

[Ralf11]

No, firedog, but I would certainly demand proof if you preferred an insipid sugar water to the aggro, in yer face, strip yer teeth and doin' it out in the open & obvious taste of Coke.

 

I take your point, but to be clear establishing a preference held by any group is also a fact, and subject to experimental verification.

 

What I don't understand is Paul R's apparent preference for MQA...

[Rt66indierock]

12 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

No, you are rationalizing here. The point was there are plenty of "measurements" of MQA sound out there on the net, and from some pretty respectable sources. That was the question you know.

 

Mansr and Danny scoffed at it, but that is really arrogant tunnel blindness, and as you say, taking the review in utter isolation against what one might know. The review simply said turning on the MQA On switch improved the sound. I have seen nothing here that invalidates or even casts doubt on that. 

 

If it sounds better with the MQA switch on, then it is also quite reasonable to assume that the MQA switch engages MQA processing. In this case, probably just a MQA filter, which, by sufficient stretch of the imagination, could be construed as "turning on MQA."  

 

I personally would not agree with that, however, I would be enraged if they had pulled that on a iPhone. And shocker - Darko and others say their music sounds better on the iPhone with MQA processing. 

 

Obdurate is insisting that everyone else in the world must agree with you because you are RIGHT! Why can't those knuckleheads see that? I do not think I am often guilty of that. Perhaps occasionally, but not here on this subject. 

 

MQA is an. extreme example, you do find that behavior all over audiophile culture though. We used to regularly get missionaries from Hydrogen Audio over here to "save us" from our foolishness. How is this utterly cretinous MQA crusade any different? Or insisting that Digital sounds better than Vinyl, or vice versa? 

 

 

 

And what, except very specific knowledge and understanding of actual MQA performance, gathered pretty much exclusively here I suspect, would make you suspect that the MQA ON switch does not turn on MQA processing? 

 

 

Perhaps I am being influenced a bit because am researching some historical happenings surrounding WWI lately. I don't think that there has ever been a greater set of lies sold with "facts" than at that time.* An incredibly nasty war, fought for reasons that were nothing more than a fabrication of lies. Then many more lies and the even worse horrors of WWII. It may have been a hundred years ago, but people do not seem to have changed all that much today. 

 

In a very small way, this MQA crusade  is exactly like that. People are choosing a particular set of facts, in isolation, and pushing them as the absolute truth that can not be denied.That is exactly as inappropriate as telling someone they are not an audiophile because they have not spent enough money on their equipment, or because they don't like vinyl, or don't like digital, or are not subscribed to Tidal, or what have you. 

 

Its just like when we used to get missionaries from Hydrogen Audio every week or so, all determined to save us from our totally unscientific ridiculous beliefs that DACs could sound different, or any cable can be better than 18g zip cord. Except the people here are the missionaries today, torches, boiling oil, tar, feathers, and pitchforks arrayed against MQA or anyone who says a damn thing they don't like about it. 

 

*Well, except perhaps for some of  the damn yankees during reconstruction. Still telling the same lies today.  Or maybe during the McCarthy era. (*sigh*)  Maybe it just never ends. 

 

So why don’t you tell us what was going on with MQA in 2014. I’m in interested in what  facts you think you know.

[botrytis]

I think the problem is, people have read all the Stereophile and other audio magazines about how great MQA is, without actually listening and determining for themselves. They made the decision to believe that MQA IS BETTER, so subconsciously they actually determine that it is. That is how human hearing, etc works.

 

Blind listening throws that into this type of belief system (not the right term but writing fast) into a conundrum and hence many do not want to do it or complain loudly that it is not the right way to do it. BUT, it is the only way to take out human built-in biases. 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Hi John. 

 

DRM is a concern, but mostly it is a blue herring. I can not think of any DRM system that was not swiftly bypassed the moment it became a nuisanice. Might be one, but I seriously doubt MQA would be that example. 

Given the statement about 'DRM can be easily bypassed', then that even makes MQA even more worthless.  Also, those likely to be the most dangerous (properly decoding DRMed ancient material with DolbyA, and then 'rebroadcasting it') are the least likely to be stopped.  

 

The little 'guy/gal' who simply wants simple freedom/no-muss/no-fuss flexibility WILL be stopped.

 

DRM is just a BAD thing for the customers, and now there is a bit of an argument about decreased benefit for the music owners.   It is good for the licensors -- if they end up actually making money on it.

WRT MQA -- then why?  Answer: benefit the licensors, and no benefit to the consumer.  Sell it to the music owners as a benefit, of course -- someone says something about DRM being bypassed, right?

 

PS: regarding sound preferences -- sometimes AGC type compression sounds good to some people...  Does that make it good?  Does it make it beneficial, esp when the end user can theoretically do their own AGC compression?

 

Again, why try to take away freedom with DRM/MQA?  Benefit the licensors, not the customers.  The goal isn't even to benefit to the music owners (per the arguments about it being theoretically 'easily bypassed'.)

 

There is just no real 'goodness' in MQA, other than a siphon of assets by those who don't own the music, from those who want to listen.

MQA is then a wedge into the revenue stream....

 

John

 

[Paul R]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

No, firedog, but I would certainly demand proof if you preferred an insipid sugar water to the aggro, in yer face, strip yer teeth and doin' it out in the open & obvious taste of Coke.

 

I take your point, but to be clear establishing a preference held by any group is also a fact, and subject to experimental verification.

 

What I don't understand is Paul R's apparent preference for MQA...

 

First, I do not have a preference for MQA, and you know that perfectly well. 

 

Second, I have a distinct distaste for people putting out as fact what is not fact, not even well supported opinion. Then using that as a reason to diss anyone who even questions what they believe.

 

Why do you believe MQA sounds worse than say, redbook FLAC? I can find some evidence MQA might not sound better, but none that points to it sounding worse. And there is plenty of circumstantial or heresay evidence that a MQA sounds better. That does not prove anything either way. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This whole people like MQA thing reminds me of the whole people like MP3 thing.

 

https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/ipod-generation-prefer-mp3-fidelity-cd-says-study-25288/

[Paul R]

24 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

So why don’t you tell us what was going on with MQA in 2014. I’m in interested in what  facts you think you know.

 

I am not convinced you are interested in any facts about MQA that does not advance your agenda. I mean that kindly, but it does seem to be the case.  

 

To redirect back to the immediate subject under discussion, have you any listening tests that prove, or supportable reasons that can be tested, why some people prefer the sound of MQA?  (Testable reasons that do not involve some kind of conspiracy theory.)  

 

We already know there are solid, heavily verified reasons why, in theory, MQA should not sound better. But there is plenty of evidence, heresay or circumstantial it may be, that at least some people with good listening skills prefer the sound of MQA, or at east, do not audibly perceive defects. There are lots of theories why, but few or none of those theories have been tested. 

 

I think Boytris’ idea is correct - but it applies equally to the MQA and Anti-MQA crusaders. Nobody wants real testing because they are concerned it will harm their positions.

 

[botrytis]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This whole people like MQA thing reminds me of the whole people like MP3 thing.

 

https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/ipod-generation-prefer-mp3-fidelity-cd-says-study-25288/

 

It is what they are used to. Kind of like people who prefer vinyl over CD's and digital. No one is wrong.

 

The point of MQA is to control the music and also to resell what is already out there again. I mean, reselling was done going from vinyl to CD and then SACD. MQA also has a DRM system built in. It is not an after thought, it is the reason MQA was developed.

[Paul R]

Just now, botrytis said:

 

It is what they are used to. Kind of like people who prefer vinyl over CD's and digital. No one is wrong.

 

The point of MQA is to control the music and also to resell what is already out there again. I mean, reselling was done going from vinyl to CD and then SACD. MQA also has a DRM system built in. It is not an after thought, it is the reason MQA was developed.

 

Minor point - MQA does not have a DRM system built in. It has exits to add one. 

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I am not convinced you are interested in any facts about MQA that does not advance your agenda. I mean that kindly, but it does seem to be the case.  

 

 

With all due respect, you appear to be equally inflexible in your thinking and fixated on the LEAST relevant details such as whether or not MQA may or may not sound marginally better than the alternatives.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

The point of MQA is to control the music and also to resell what is already out there again.

Control? Sure.

 

Resell? No way. 

 

Labels know that ship has sailed. 

[Ralf11]

37 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

First, I do not have a preference for MQA, and you know that perfectly well. 

 

Second, I have a distinct distaste for people putting out as fact what is not fact, not even well supported opinion. Then using that as a reason to diss anyone who even questions what they believe.

 

Why do you believe MQA sounds worse than say, redbook FLAC? I can find some evidence MQA might not sound better, but none that points to it sounding worse. And there is plenty of circumstantial or heresay evidence that a MQA sounds better. That does not prove anything either way. 

 

 

posting BS and fake "facts" merely discredits your comments

[esldude]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Thanks.  Audiophile descriptive language such as "clarity", "resolution", and the like (to say nothing of descriptors like "musicality") are so variable as to be almost useless.  SBAF and others have made a conscious effort to find a common agreement through common experience with some (if limited) success, but yes in a study like this...

Speaking of SBAF, when will they test MQA for plankton?

[Rt66indierock]

48 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I am not convinced you are interested in any facts about MQA that does not advance your agenda. I mean that kindly, but it does seem to be the case.  

 

To redirect back to the immediate subject under discussion, have you any listening tests that prove, or supportable reasons that can be tested, why some people prefer the sound of MQA?  (Testable reasons that do not involve some kind of conspiracy theory.)  

 

We already know there are solid, heavily verified reasons why, in theory, MQA should not sound better. But there is plenty of evidence, heresay or circumstantial it may be, that at least some people with good listening skills prefer the sound of MQA, or at east, do not audibly perceive defects. There are lots of theories why, but few or none of those theories have been tested. 

 

I think Boytris’ idea is correct - but it applies equally to the MQA and Anti-MQA crusaders. Nobody wants real testing because they are concerned it will harm their positions.

 

 

The answer to your question is in what happened with MQA in 2914. 

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Minor point - MQA does not have a DRM system built in. It has exits to add one. 

 

The MQA "ecosystem" is in itself DRM.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

posting BS and fake "facts" merely discredits your comments

And postings like yours just reveal your bias. (Shrug) 

 

Where are your test results? What evidence do you really have? What facts are you operating on, and what facts are you suppressing to bolster what you believe? Have you  personally done a listening test for yourself? What did you find? 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

36 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The answer to your question is in what happened with MQA in 2914. 

 

That will take a while to find out. 896 years from now I am sure MQA will be of interest only to withered academics trying to piece together the history of  that weird tribe called audiophiles. 🤪

 

Why not just drop the mystery and spell out what you think you know? I might assume you are talking about the AES presentations, or the Brit launch party, but it would be a waste of time to guess what you are talking about.