MQA is Vaporware

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

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:

 

 

 

I still have my 9 track BSD 4.3 source tape, and I was an opponent of AT&Ts grab for Unix.  There were people that bought SCO even, though I have not encountered that since Y2K. (Thankfully.) 

 

Honestly, I am more opposed to people saying other people can’t buy music in whatever the heck format they choose. I do think people that buy DRM infested music are silly. But then, that is their right, no? 

 

Also, MQA is not DRM infested, though there are exits in the code for DRM licensing software. Best I can tell, it is an even sillier idea than buying DRM infested music files in the first place. 

 

Just me though - YMMV. 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I still have my 9 track BSD 4.3 source tape, and I was an opponent of AT&Ts grab for Unix.  There were people that bought SCO even, though I have not encountered that since Y2K. (Thankfully.) 

 

Honestly, I am more opposed to people saying other people can’t buy music in whatever the heck format they choose. I do think people that buy DRM infested music are silly. But then, that is their right, no? 

 

Also, MQA is not DRM infested, though there are exits in the code for DRM licensing software. Best I can tell, it is an even sillier idea than buying DRM infested music files in the first place. 

 

Just me though - YMMV. 

Is that your best argument in favour of MQA?

[crenca]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

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

 

MQA was seen for what it is there from almost the very beginning.   That sort of site has its weaknesses, but there are advantages as well - they would not tolerate Paul R making stuff up for page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after....

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is that your best argument in favour of MQA?

About 100 pages ago he said he was done posting in this thread. Why are we still so unlucky?

 

Answer: An eternity of free time. The Devil makes use of idle hands. 

[gdpr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Control? Sure.

 

Resell? No way. 

 

Labels know that ship has sailed. 

Are you sure about 'resell? No Way'.

In the Western world, I believe you are quite right.

Talking with my hifi dealer, he sees a total shift of the attention of audio manufacturesr and service providers shift to the China, India (with probably other countries in the regions to follow).

I can very well imagine that 'local' music overthere will be resold as this has happened overhere.  

Dirk

[mansr]

1 minute ago, ddetaey said:

Are you sure about 'resell? No Way'.

In the Western world, I believe you are quite right.

It seems like every month there's a new deluxe anniversary edition of something or other.

[Rt66indierock]

52 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

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. 

 

Take all the time you need. Your assumptions don’t answer the question you posed.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Is that your best argument in favour of MQA?

 

If I were arguing in favor of MQA, that would not be an argument I would use!

 

I am pointing our that neither archinago's research or yours provides a reliable measure of how an MQA file sounds in comparison to a similar FLAC file.  In fact, I just spent a wasted hour scanning the 634 pages of this thread to see how many people said much about how it sounded. Very few indeed, with Sam Cogley giving the best comment on it a couple of years ago. 

 

Clearly, MQA files sound superior to some people. Why? Or conversely, why do they sound worse to some people, if they do?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

Clearly, MQA files sound superior to some people. Why?

For the same reason MP3 files sound better to some people. They just do. 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Take all the time you need. Your assumptions don’t answer the question you posed.

 

That's silly - I asked you a question you refuse to answer. 

 

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.)

 

Lay your cards out on the table for discussion. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

That's silly - I asked you a question you refuse to answer. 

 

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.)

 

Lay your cards out on the table for discussion. 

That’s probably more of a psychological research project than anything. In addition, nobody knows the source masters and which few albums got the white glove treatment. Last, nothing MQA does requires MQA to make happen. 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For the same reason MP3 files sound better to some people. They just do. 

 

LOL!  Well, there is always a reason Chris.  With MP3's it is because MP3s - at least low rate MP3s -  have a certain house sound to them that appeals to some of the younger set. They appeal to the younger set because they were readily available to younger set through peer to peer file sharing. So far as I know, hardly anyone buys there music in MP3 format these days, and certainly not many - if any - audiophiles. 

 

MQA is not ubiquitous like MP3s though, not easily available, and claims to be of much higher quality. Nobody knows for sure if it sounds better than MP3, Redbook, or high resolution. 

 

What if MQA did sound better than say, the equivalent FLAC, as some are claiming? That would, inevitably, change the way some folks look at it, and create a demand for it. The last time you compared MQA files with Flac, listening for sound, what did you find?  Better, equal, or worse? 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s probably more of a psychological research project than anything. In addition, nobody knows the source masters and which few albums got the white glove treatment. Last, nothing MQA does requires MQA to make happen. 

 

I did note that several posts back as a reason why people would not want to research MQA sound. But it doesn't negate the issue -  nobody really knows if it sounds better or worse. The McGill study we referenced earlier is about the best, and it wound up concluding that in the area they concentrated on, FLAc and MQA sound about the same. 

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

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? 

 

 

 

 

 

No.  You LIED about what I said.

 

STOP IT.

[Paul R]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

No.  You LIED about what I said.

 

STOP IT.

 

Where?  I complemented you actually.  (Note to self, remember not to complement Ralfy, even when he is perfectly right about something or says something eminently sensible) 

 

Otherwise, if you simply read something wrong, I do apologize. 

 

Oh never mind - you think that this: 

 "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. " 

 

Was directed at you personally. My apologies, it was not. It was general observation, and actually, I was thinking about the general disrespect leveled at JA and few other people. I can see how you thought I was jibing at you though. 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

No.  You LIED about what I said.

 

STOP IT.

Lee Scoggins Lite it seems. Shrug. Sigh. He is still with the passive aggressive "I don't care about MQA" baloney but posts ad nauseam and each post is a novel to boot. Oy Vey.

[Ralf11]

27 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Where?  I complemented you actually.  (Note to self, remember not to complement Ralfy, even when he is perfectly right about something or says something eminently sensible) 

 

Otherwise, if you simply read something wrong, I do apologize. 

 

Oh never mind - you think that this: 

 "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. " 

 

Was directed at you personally. My apologies, it was not. It was general observation, and actually, I was thinking about the general disrespect leveled at JA and few other people. I can see how you thought I was jibing at you though. 

 

 

No.  See the part of your post I highlighted above 

 

I have never claimed that MQA sounds better or worse than Redbook. 

[daverich4]

21 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Lee Scoggins Lite it seems. Shrug. Sigh. He is still with the passive aggressive "I don't care about MQA" baloney but posts ad nauseam and each post is a novel to boot. Oy Vey.

 

Paul is right though that since the thread started there has been lots of discussion about why MQA can’t sound good but almost no posts about what people actually HEAR wrong with it. I’ve posted a couple of times that I neither hear the claimed improvements nor anything wrong with it. That’s my experience, what is yours?

[Paul R]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

No.  See the part of your post I highlighted above 

 

I have never claimed that MQA sounds better or worse than Redbook. 

 

I don't see the highlight, but regardless, that should have been a question asked of you, not a statement. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. 

 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

I still have my 9 track BSD 4.3 source tape, and I was an opponent of AT&Ts grab for Unix.  There were people that bought SCO even, though I have not encountered that since Y2K. (Thankfully.) 

 

Honestly, I am more opposed to people saying other people can’t buy music in whatever the heck format they choose. I do think people that buy DRM infested music are silly. But then, that is their right, no? 

 

Also, MQA is not DRM infested, though there are exits in the code for DRM licensing software. Best I can tell, it is an even sillier idea than buying DRM infested music files in the first place. 

 

Just me though - YMMV. 

 

I simply can't understand how you can be a supporter of open systems and not see MQA for what it is. 

[KeenObserver]

37 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Lee Scoggins Lite it seems. Shrug. Sigh. He is still with the passive aggressive "I don't care about MQA" baloney but posts ad nauseam and each post is a novel to boot. Oy Vey.

 

I guess the main thing I missed not being here for several months is that Paul took over for Lee.

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Paul is right though that since the thread started there has been lots of discussion about why MQA can’t sound good but almost no posts about what people actually HEAR wrong with it. I’ve posted a couple of times that I neither hear the claimed improvements nor anything wrong with it. That’s my experience, what is yours?

Given the lies told by MQA Ltd and it’s complete control over everything, many people don’t care how it sounds. They just don’t like it. 

 

On the other hand, making claims about how a format sounds is ridiculous. A dynamically compressed anything sounds like hell. A white gloved MQA album can sound spectacular. However, I’ll take a white glove pure PCM album so I can play it using the filter of my choice and use any DSP I want. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s probably more of a psychological research project than anything. In addition, nobody knows the source masters and which few albums got the white glove treatment. Last, nothing MQA does requires MQA to make happen. 

 

No it is real research project that PaulR can do or not do, his choice. 

 

And your correct there is nothing MQA does that can’t be done without it.

[KeenObserver]

Better!

[kumakuma]

32 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I guess the main thing I missed not being here for several months is that Paul took over for Lee.

 

He's actually a much more effective shill than Lee.

 

Lee tried to go head-to-head with opponents of MQA.

 

Paul's strategy is more subtle. He tries to make MQA appear to be benign and nothing to worry about while at the same time painting those who oppose it as irrational and bullies.