Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, esldude said:

Translation:

 

Roon does the first unfold so I get magic.  The second unfold isn't even necessary so strong is my belief and faith.  Tidal isn't charging extra for this.  And while MQA could screw me with impunity at any time with potential DRM, I'm like an unscrewed customer so far.  I trust someone who can screw me over at any instant, someone in business to make money, to not ever do that to me.  What more could one ask for.  

 

 

 

Schafe können sicher weiden
Wo ein guter Hirte wacht.

Wo Regenten wohl regieren
Kann man Ruh' und Friede spüren
Und was Länder glücklich macht.

 

Sheep may safely graze and pasture
In a watchful Shepherd's sight.

 

Those who rule with wisdom guiding
Bring to hearts a peace abiding
Bless a land with joy made bright.

 

 


"Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe people. It is a vital human need."  ---  Charles Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I F Stone would do it


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mansr said:

Perhaps not, but that's not the correct analogy. Imagine if a company came along touting a new wonder-fuel. To use this fuel, you'd have to have an engine fitted with their widget. Furthermore, it would require special pumps, and they would be the only producer. Would it not be wise to look into the financials of such a company before recommending that everybody invest in their technology?

 

Not, if they claim the fuel does also improve the performance of all other cars.

 

I guess, it would be the job of the car companies to investigate the financial background of the new fuel company, if they want to work together. And talking about analogy: fuel and cars are for 90% of the population, "improved" SQ for audiophile is for 1%, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 10:52 AM, manisandher said:

Subjectively, they sound as loud as each other. And yet, they do sound different, as evidenced in the three 'apples-to-apples' threads. Aggregating the results of the three threads, people seemed to prefer the sound of MQA over hires (from the same master) in about 50% of cases. Draw whatever conclusion you wish...

 

Well, no conclusion possible I guess.

  • 50% MQA lovers, 49% indifferent, and 1% in favour of FLAC
  • 50% MQA lovers, 50% in favour of FLAC

What conclusion should I draw based on your information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, andifor said:

Get real. Why would a HiFi journalist, reporting about a new product, check the financial background of a company?

MQA isn't just a new product, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, esldude said:

Translation:

 

Roon does the first unfold so I get magic.  The second unfold isn't even necessary so strong is my belief and faith.  Tidal isn't charging extra for this.  And while MQA could screw me with impunity at any time with potential DRM, I'm like an unscrewed customer so far.  I trust someone who can screw me over at any instant, someone in business to make money, to not ever do that to me.  What more could one ask for.  

 

 

 

No translation necessary. This is the statement I was responding to. 

 

But the point is, you need to buy a new DAC, the MQA files cost more, AND there is the DRM which does not bode well.”

 

Not one of those items is true. (DRM in the future perhaps but not currently).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mansr said:

Perhaps not, but that's not the correct analogy. Imagine if a company came along touting a new wonder-fuel. To use this fuel, you'd have to have an engine fitted with their widget. Furthermore, it would require special pumps, and they would be the only producer. Would it not be wise to look into the financials of such a company before recommending that everybody invest in their technology?

But in this case, no one is being asked to invest in the technology or the company, these publications are for consumers, and they should be able to make up their own mind about purchasing a product that is destined to be an expensive paperweight or not.

 

So knowing the company financials, unless the company has a distinct history of fraud, misconduct, or reckless behavior....is really not in the realm of a product review. And INVESTIGATIVE piece on the company would be a different category.

 

I will repeat, looking at Meridian's financials provided us with a motive for the formation of MQA Ltd.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is buying an MQA DAC not an investment in the technology? While a normal DAC will continue to fulfil its function even if the manufacturer vanishes, the "benefit" of an MQA DAC is reliant on continued access to MQA-encoded content. When the MQA company goes away, there will be no more MQA content. The money you paid for the MQA feature (and you did pay, whether or not it was explicitly itemised) will then have been wasted. On the flip side, if you buy MQA files, you are relying on the continued existence of compatible software and hardware for playback. When these are no longer produced, your files become useless. In this light, the financial stability of the provider becomes quite relevant.

Of course what you lay out here is correct...but not unusual in any way...how many useless boxes are sitting in Audiophile's attacks or garages? HUNDREDS of millions of dollars worth. DCC, MiniDisc, Quadrophonic, and how many other pieces of shit lol...

 

With DACs where the MQA implementation does not infect regular playback, many just say, "Well I needed a DAC anyway". Of course, personally, any DAC that offers MQA is on my Do Not Buy List.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Journalism has problems, but most of those are related to speed of propagation, and to how easily it is to fact check someone. Also, how many bogus stories are on the net. 

 

However, in this case, I really don't think pro-active measures like you call for were either appropriate or justifiable in _Stereophile_. Nor is _Stereophile_ - or any other hobby mag in audio --  a technical journal where investigation like that is something like would have been normal or even expected. Along with peer review in a lot of cases.  

 

I am not even certain that an investigative journalist article on the failing of MQA would have been justified, it targeted for publishing in _Stereophile_. Even less so in something like _That Absolute Sound_. That takes a lot of resources and man hours that are usually not allocated or even available when talking about a hobby magazine. Time, NPR, etc. would be more appropriate places to run an article like that, and much more likely to buy it. 

 

Not for nefarious reasons, but because of the readership and normal editorial content. Time, for example, doesn't do that many product reviews, while NPR does both product reviews and in depth news reports. You might consider writing up your story and peddling it to NPR. They would, probably, force you to remove any blatant prejudice or favoritism. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well NPR generally finds me not biased enough. And my friend Andy Quint of TAS admitted they were wrong in his opinion about MQA.

 

Stereophile did an investigative series about MQA which I mocked with a contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Of course what you lay out here is correct...but not unusual in any way...how many useless boxes are sitting in Audiophile's attacks or garages? HUNDREDS of millions of dollars worth. DCC, MiniDisc, Quadrophonic, and how many other pieces of shit lol...

I didn't mean to imply this was a consideration unique to MQA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Well NPR generally finds me not biased enough. And my friend Andy Quint of TAS admitted they were wrong in his opinion about MQA.

 

Stereophile did an investigative series about MQA which I mocked with a contest.

 

That might have deserved some mocking, I am not sure it actually qualified as "investigative journalism." 

 


Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes, of course it is cynical.  

 

Excellent example is ATT.  I've need to do business with these snakes in the grass.  They always try to confuse and screw the customer.  They offer pitiful service in almost every aspect of business.  I do not trust them at all.  But need to do business with them because of their monopoly position.  It wouldn't make much sense to trust them.  If I have a choice, they'll  lose my limited business as a customer immediately.    I see MQA as trying to position themselves so you don't have much of a choice in the end to end nature of it.  No real benefit to the customer at all.  

AT&T used to do a lot of cool research -- a lot of benefit, and a lot of the intellectual property was made available.  Then they became less and less of a national resource (because of no monopoly and no gov't agreement anymore.)  In the 1980's through the early 1990s, I was still working in some of the nicer parts of AT&T Bell Labs, doing all kinds of interesting things (I was lead systems engineer on one of the first TV satellite schemes, worked on the HDTV stuff, pre-GPS vehicle location, etc.)  About the time I left, the last vestiges of the real AT&T was gone.  Now, SW Bell bought the AT&T name, and isn't the same kind of company.  Even the 'death star' logo is different in subtle ways.

 

BTW -- back in the old days, old AT&T did have some  BAD attributes, but in the day, a semi-monopoly like AT&T eliminated chaos that couldn't really be sustained.  But, as technology improved, more market chaos could be sustained.  (For example, what company could actually implement the TV broadcast distribution in the US before satellites?  I doubt the gov't could even do it.  An example, of the breadth of the effort AT&T was developing very special triode tubes to enhance the long lines system so that color TV could be distributed -- and those strange looking, strategically placed (for security reasons) relay sites had to be spaced about 30miles apart between the major cities.)   Actually, the initial problem of sending video between the east and west coasts was one reason why the US adopted film early on for the TV network shows -- then it became a tradition until the 1970s, where tape would be used for sitcoms, etc.

 

The general AT&T issue is complex, but all-in-all, I agree about the current AT&T.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Stereophile did an investigative series about MQA which I mocked with a contest.

 

In the length of this thread I may have missed something, but did you ever choose a winner for the Arby's coupon?  If so, it'd be nice to see the winning text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...