MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

59 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Prove what, exactly? That MQA sounds no better or even worse to you than does a comparable FLAC? 

 

Right. Now how precisely do you expect anyone but yourself to do that? 

 

And please stop stop trying to make me out as an MQA advocate. I have said exactly nothing to indicate I like MQA and more than once, stated beyond any possibility of doubt I do not.  

 

You want to put an end to your MQA “menace?”  Then simply tell people how it sounds to you. YOU have the power to do that. Not I. 

 

And - it is all you have to do. 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is I have. People tell me that is not what you heard. Nothing more I can do. This has happened more than once and on more than one forum. As I said, people have read in the audio magazines that MQA is the best thing since sliced bread. They ask me, what do I know.? This is the impasse we are at. You have the disingenuous audio press pushing MQA, yet I have determined, for me, it is not a good thing (sounds terrible, etc.). How can I compete with the audiophile press?

 

Then we have people, like Mansr, Archimago, Chris, etc. that go out of their way to explore and test MQA, along with other things (like DACs, etc) and prove that MQA is not all they say. What do they get? Condemnation and belittling from the audio press as well as MQA itself. That just tells me they knew it was a load of horse poop from the beginning. 

[Paul R]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why else would you keep brushing aside all the solid evidence that MQA is nothing but a money-grabbing scam while banging on about how it sounds and that some people like that supposed sound. If MQA were good old snake oil medicine, you'd be asking us to look at the bottle and say if we find it pretty.

 

You obdurately hear what you wish to hear, not what I wrote. 

 

I said that besides myself, pretty much everyone I have talked to that thought MQA sounded better than PCM or DSD changed their minds when they were able to listen to it a properly level matched and relaxed test environment. 

 

I said that individual opinions are far more compelling than “jump on the bandwagon” propaganda crap.  

 

I said said that I do not buy into the hidden agenda here. I have no desire to punish the audiophile press. 

 

I said that that the testing and research done here shows that MQA is an inferior format. 

 

I have said that MQA the company’s behavior is odious and utterly unacceptable. 

 

I said the last thing that MQA has to hang onto is “MQA sounds better.” To disprove that, you must listen to it, there is just simply no other way. 

 

I even said why MQA won’t do such testing, it would be cutting their own throats. 

 

I said I disagree with your technical evaluation of MQA processing, provided you references and my identity  in private messages, and declined to dispute it in public with you. It is not important to me to prove you “wrong” or myself “right”, nor do I wish to be the target of any potential lawsuit. And it does not effect the sound, which I have repeatedly said is far more important than the tech - to me and most other audiophiles. 

 

Yet from your own prejudice, you insist I am a fan of or supporter of MQA. That is ridiculous. 

 

Listening is is the key here. In more than one way. 

[KeenObserver]

57 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Nope. The extraordinary claim here is that MQA sounds better than say, FLAC.  It is sheer fantasy to think anyone can prove or disprove that to you. 

 

Either it sounds better to you, or it does not. There is no middle ground in that. And nobody, not one single person on the entire planet, can answer that question for you - only you can do it. 

 

Or you can just attack me, because I refuse to buy into the stupid group think and middle school taunting you and others wish to engage in. Middle school taunts did not bother me all that much in middle school, why would they now?  I encourage you to think, rather than emote. 

 

WOW!

 

Are you alright?

 

Do you want me to call someone?

[Paul R]

9 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

The point is I have. People tell me that is not what you heard. Nothing more I can do. This has happened more than once and on more than one forum. As I said, people have read in the audio magazines that MQA is the best thing since sliced bread. They ask me, what do I know.? This is the impasse we are at. You have the disingenuous audio press pushing MQA, yet I have determined, for me, it is not a good thing (sounds terrible, etc.). How can I compete with the audiophile press?

 

Then we have people, like Mansr, Archimago, Chris, etc. that go out of their way to explore and test MQA, along with other things (like DACs, etc) and prove that MQA is not all they say. What do they get? Condemnation and belittling from the audio press as well as MQA itself. That just tells me they knew it was a load of horse poop from the beginning. 

 

You already do compete with, and influence them to some degree or another. It is not like your voice isn’t heard, despite all the stupidity thrown your way to muffle it. Or mine, or any of the other folks who just come out and say what they heard. It sounds trite, but the truth will out in the end. 

 

My opinion, but the problem with the audiophile press is more that they are under attack from here than they are attacking anyone. The “hidden agenda” here is, in part to punish the press. You attack anyone and they tend to defend themselves. That is true even of the press people vilified here. I have no idea how Atkinson, for example has so much patience. 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

WOW!

 

Are you alright?

 

Do you want me to call someone?

 

LOL! Only if they deliver beer and pizza. Maybe skip the pizza. 🤪

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

WOW!

 

Someone is spending an incredible amount of time and effort re-posting all the talking points that Lee posted.  They are being re-posted in a more passive-aggressive fashion, but they are the same BS.

 

lee never did the name calling and unreasoning hatred that paulr does.

[Paul R]

30 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You need a verb between "cannot" and "evil".

 

Eval -> evaluate. Thanks.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Interesting how much he likes to insult his audience.

 

 

Lasagna is also violating Paul Klee's intellectual property rights

[KeenObserver]

Upon investigation of this "secret agenda" it has been determined that Professor Moriarty, Loki, The Joker, and a slew of other nefarious characters has been plotting against Paul R from their secret base at the South Pole.

[kumakuma]

28 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

You obdurately hear what you wish to hear, not what I wrote. 

 

I said that besides myself, pretty much everyone I have talked to that thought MQA sounded better than PCM or DSD changed their minds when they were able to listen to it a properly level matched and relaxed test environment. 

 

I said that individual opinions are far more compelling than “jump on the bandwagon” propaganda crap.  

 

I said said that I do not buy into the hidden agenda here. I have no desire to punish the audiophile press. 

 

I said that that the testing and research done here shows that MQA is an inferior format. 

 

I have said that MQA the company’s behavior is odious and utterly unacceptable. 

 

I said the last thing that MQA has to hang onto is “MQA sounds better.” To disprove that, you must listen to it, there is just simply no other way. 

 

I even said why MQA won’t do such testing, it would be cutting their own throats. 

 

I said I disagree with your technical evaluation of MQA processing, provided you references and my identity  in private messages, and declined to dispute it in public with you. It is not important to me to prove you “wrong” or myself “right”, nor do I wish to be the target of any potential lawsuit. And it does not effect the sound, which I have repeatedly said is far more important than the tech - to me and most other audiophiles. 

 

Yet from your own prejudice, you insist I am a fan of or supporter of MQA. That is ridiculous. 

 

Listening is is the key here. In more than one way. 

 

Wait, so are you saying you're in violent agreement with pretty well everyone else here?

[tmtomh]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Nope, I must have misunderstood or misread what you wrote.

 

That one cannot evil MQA in total isolation (at least without extreme measures) is so obvious that I guess I just did not really think to say out loud I agree. Apologies for that, was not trying to be rude. 

 

Appreciate the reply, Paul.

 

I'm hoping we can further agree that when comparing MQA and PCM, using the same source (meaning the MQA and PCM sources are generated from the same base mastering of the album or music in question, of course understanding that MQA encoding can change the sound), using the same upstream and downstream equipment before and after the DAC, and volume-matching the MQA and PCM versions, does not count as "extreme measures."

 

In other words, while I agree that it can be difficult to completely isolate MQA so that one is only comparing the pure algorithm and digital filters, many MQA comparisons have apparently been done with significantly different masterings, unmatched levels, and so on - and I would hope we could agree that those types of comparisons are not desirable and are avoidable with a level of care that need not rise to the level of "extreme measures."

 

Yes?

[Paul R]

Most certainly. Extreme measures are more like what the McGill study did. Your thinking appears both clear and sound to me. 

 

I think for comparisons of the level we are talking about, a relaxed atmosphere and very familiar equipment are what is called for. After all, where I would really want to hear the difference is is my own rig, the one I listen to the most. I am assuming that most people would want to go that route as well. 

 

I don't think that finding matching MQA and PCM audio files to compare is that much of a chore, though MQA does seem to always have the amplitude boosted. Adjusting the volume to equal levels is a chore, but is one thing that absolutely has to be done. 

 

Yours, 

-Paul

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I don't think that finding matching MQA and PCM audio files to compare is that much of a chore...

 

Hi Paul

 

I chased this rabbit for a while and gave up.  Seems like there's always a difference with the MQA version.  That could be intentional as to make direct comparisons difficult or impossible.  Also, I've not seen much in the way of mastering provenance information shared by the record labels, which also makes such a comparison effort exceedingly difficult.

 

In other words, I don't think it's in MQA's best interests for people to make those comparisons and that's why it's very difficult to do.

[rando]

Next sentences in the May 2018 issue of Hifi Pig interview of Lothar Kerestedjian I previously quoted from.

 

"It doesn't matter what it is - they (US based mediums) jump on it and make it big (for a short period of time) and then something new comes along.  There is no persistence feel."

 

Fighting hype with hype, bluster blow for blow with bluster,...  When MQA is no longer interesting this same endowment will pass to the next drum circle ad infinitum.  Sound familiar?

 

Two and a half paragraphs later we continue a reasonable assessment.

 

"Over the past two years, the initial product concept, company's attitude and the way MQA was marketed has changed and felt dishonest to me.  Hence, the abrupt stop.  Bob Stuart promised me many things but none of them have come through so far.  I wonder why?"

 

Hmm, less a blind chest thumping frenzied war party brooking no new information disagreeable to its cravings for contact with the enemy than calm assessment of which way the winds are blowing.  The strength to reverse a previously held conclusion at risk to one's name. 

 

Sensible and civil.

 

Edit: I see at least one recent response directly above has been removed.  Should this seem somewhat disjointed or lacking immediate context. 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

^ the profundity has rendered me blind.  Such eloquence I hope never to encounter again. 🙂

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

27 minutes ago, rando said:

Next sentences in the May 2018 issue of Hifi Pig interview of Lothar Kerestedjian I previously quoted from.

 

"It doesn't matter what it is - they (US based mediums) jump on it and make it big (for a short period of time) and then something new comes along.  There is no persistence feel."

 

Fighting hype with hype, bluster blow for blow with bluster,...  When MQA is no longer interesting this same endowment will pass to the next drum circle ad infinitum.  Sound familiar?

 

Two and a half paragraphs later we continue a reasonable assessment.

 

"Over the past two years, the initial product concept, company's attitude and the way MQA was marketed has changed and felt dishonest to me.  Hence, the abrupt stop.  Bob Stuart promised me many things but none of them have come through so far.  I wonder why?"

 

Hmm, less a blind chest thumping frenzied war party brooking no new information disagreeable to its cravings for contact with the enemy than calm assessment of which way the winds are blowing.  The strength to reverse a previously held conclusion at risk to one's name. 

 

Sensible and civil.

 

Edit: I see at least one recent response directly above has been removed.  Should this seem somewhat disjointed or lacking immediate context. 

 

i guess some get "repetitive post count/page view producing" witness protection. 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

I said the last thing that MQA has to hang onto is “MQA sounds better.”

And by golly, you sure are hanging.

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

To disprove that, you must listen to it, there is just simply no other way. 

Whether I personally like or dislike how something sounds neither proves nor disproves a thing. Besides, who cares if the snake oil comes in a pretty bottle? It might even smell nice. It's still snake oil.

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

I said I disagree with your technical evaluation of MQA processing, provided you references and my identity  in private messages,

You gave me a couple of links to elementary texts on signal processing, nothing related to MQA. Certainly not supporting whatever it was you tried to claim. As for your identity, a Google image search on your profile picture leads straight to your LinkedIn page.

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hmmm. So far I've seen MQA Ltd. want to remaster content used for demonstrations but all other content is just a right-click-convert process. 

 

Then what is the white glove treatment that MQA said it has given to some recordings?

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

But we also all know that "sponsered" research tends to show what the sponsor wants it to. 

 

Kind of like clinical trials sponsored by pharma companies.

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Then what is the white glove treatment that MQA said it has given to some recordings?

It’s their demo content and a very very very limited number of releases. 

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Then what is the white glove treatment that MQA said it has given to some recordings?

 

That was the filet mignon served to the audio press. The rest of us get ground chuck.

[John Dyson]

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

I will come out and say this: Being a music consumer and seeing that MQA is pure BS and royally screws the music consumer,  I am vehemently opposed to MQA.

 

Why some people spend enormous amounts of time and effort making excuses for MQA raises questions in my mind.

Here is my guess at an answer: (Serious attempt to avoid blather herein)

 

It seems to me that sometimes people might want to discuss technically 'interesting' attributes of  'MQA'.  The problem with many in this audience (myself included), is that many have already dismissed it as an undesirable utilisation of a possibly technically interesting piece of intellectual property.  (When I mention 'undesirable', I mean in the application/usage of MQA from the consumer's standpoint.)  Given that, a discussion about the technical merits of MQA becomes less interesting for practical applications  -- and might even be interpreted as a distraction away from the possibly disqualifying disadvantages of MQA.   For those who enjoy intellectual exercises, DSP techniques/math, then some of the tricks/techniques in MQA might become an interesting discussion.

 

A purely technical discussion about MQA (statistically valid comparisons, etc) makes sense -- but the actual reason for MQA existing in the audio delivery chain keeps on being a cause for 'ugly thoughts' :-).    Some just might not be interested because MQA is already (somewhat rightfully -- IMO) blown-off as an attempt at control and or profteering.

My guess is that things would settle down if we could intellectually separate a discussion of the pure technical advantages and quality comparisons from the disqualifying aspects of MQA.  It IS difficult to separate the two kinds of discussion, because once MQA is at least superficially understood, then it can be seen as a 'solution' to a problem that a lot of people don't want to solve -- that is, filling the licensor's bank accounts.

 

There really isn't anything wrong with a purely technical/statistical discussion about MQA performance and techniques.  Just keep on remembering the reasons why MQA is liked or is NOT liked...

 

I do think that we *should* try to separate the technical good/bad about MQA from the fact that MQA doesn't seem to be a 'good thing' in general to many of us.

 

John

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The recorded music industry is doing just fine - https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-record-industry-expects-a-windfall-where-will-the-money-go/

 

I see that  ring tones revenue exceeds streaming royalties, LOL.  Actually, I shouldn't laugh, it's quite sad.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

And by golly, you sure are hanging.

 

Someone has to hang on to reason somewhere. 

 

 

Quote

Whether I personally like or dislike how something sounds neither proves nor disproves a thing. Besides, who cares if the snake oil comes in a pretty bottle? It might even smell nice. It's still snake oil.

 

Snake oil has nothing to with the simple idea of whether it sounds better or not. Calling it snake oil is accomplishing little excpet inflaming those already enraged, confusing those who might be interested, and granting a great deal of undeserved publicity and attention. 

 

Quote

You gave me a couple of links to elementary texts on signal processing, nothing related to MQA. Certainly not supporting whatever it was you tried to claim. As for your identity, a Google image search on your profile picture leads straight to your LinkedIn page.

 

Yes, simple stuff which is apparently beyond your ability to grasp and encompass. Like I said, I have no interest at all in proving you wrong or right, continue on assuming you are correct. 

 

It is always interesting to see visitors to my LinkedIn Profile, of which there are too many. Which is why there is very little of interest there. Same with Facebook. As I said, I don’t like an anonymous internet. Far too much potential for abuse. Leaving an easily followed link to several places diverts most of the kiddies. 

 

Non of which has to do with whether or not you think the sound of MQA is superior to PCM or not. It is a simple question. Not asking for an explanation. 

 

Obviously I do not follow your logic there, which seems to be how something sounds does not matter.

 

Quite an outlier opinion. 

[KeenObserver]

40 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Here is my guess at an answer: (Serious attempt to avoid blather herein)

 

It seems to me that sometimes people might want to discuss technically 'interesting' attributes of  'MQA'.  The problem with many in this audience (myself included), is that many have already dismissed it as an undesirable utilisation of a possibly technically interesting piece of intellectual property.  (When I mention 'undesirable', I mean in the application/usage of MQA from the consumer's standpoint.)  Given that, a discussion about the technical merits of MQA becomes less interesting for practical applications  -- and might even be interpreted as a distraction away from the possibly disqualifying disadvantages of MQA.   For those who enjoy intellectual exercises, DSP techniques/math, then some of the tricks/techniques in MQA might become an interesting discussion.

 

A purely technical discussion about MQA (statistically valid comparisons, etc) makes sense -- but the actual reason for MQA existing in the audio delivery chain keeps on being a cause for 'ugly thoughts' :-).    Some just might not be interested because MQA is already (somewhat rightfully -- IMO) blown-off as an attempt at control and or profteering.

My guess is that things would settle down if we could intellectually separate a discussion of the pure technical advantages and quality comparisons from the disqualifying aspects of MQA.  It IS difficult to separate the two kinds of discussion, because once MQA is at least superficially understood, then it can be seen as a 'solution' to a problem that a lot of people don't want to solve -- that is, filling the licensor's bank accounts.

 

There really isn't anything wrong with a purely technical/statistical discussion about MQA performance and techniques.  Just keep on remembering the reasons why MQA is liked or is NOT liked...

 

I do think that we *should* try to separate the technical good/bad about MQA from the fact that MQA doesn't seem to be a 'good thing' in general to many of us.

 

John

 

Refuting the same fallacies on a never ending basis is tiresome.

 

Refuting marketing lies that promoters put forth is not an intellectual exercise.