MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Ok, but why not something like this:

 

"Look, MQA is really really bad.  Its bad for us, its for the industry, its bad for consumers.  It's a DRMed superMP3 that only Audiophile trade writers seem to like.  Yet, market conditions beginning about (fill in the blank date - maybe when Apple or Spotify stream nothing but MQA, or the labels go nuclear and only provide MQA) it became a necessity..."

 

Or do we agree that they get off clean (honest question) for whatever reason?

MQA Ltd told me personally that they choose who they work with. If a manufacturer pisses them off, they’ll just say goodbye to them. 

[GUTB]

Wait, you guys are still pushing the DRM angle?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

Ok, but why not something like this:

 

"Look, MQA is really really bad.  Its bad for us, its for the industry, its bad for consumers.  It's a DRMed superMP3 that only Audiophile trade writers seem to like.  Yet, market conditions beginning about (fill in the blank date - maybe when Apple or Spotify stream nothing but MQA, or the labels go nuclear and only provide MQA) it became a necessity..."

 

Or do we agree that they get off clean (honest question) for whatever reason?

That would be making enemies.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

And of course the sorry state of how masters are preserved or not can be discussed. 

Is it true that MQA can restore high-res audio from the ashes of burned tapes?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, mansr said:

Is it true that MQA can restore high-res audio from the ashes of burned tapes?

Don’t give them any marketing ideas. 

[rickca]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If a manufacturer pisses them off, they’ll just say goodbye to them.

It's like excommunication.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

That would be making enemies.

 

Well, that's the double edged sword of fickle consumerism and markets.  Being an "enemy" of the consumer is only remembered for so long (about a day, maybe two), but being the "enemy" of this or that insider interest...that can go on for years or even lifetimes.

 

If MQA does not succeed, then surely its successor will...

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA Ltd told me personally that they choose who they work with. If a manufacturer pisses them off, they’ll just say goodbye to them. 

 

So instead these guys play footsie with the would be king maker!  Are they dumb or just stupid?

[Rt66indierock]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is it true that MQA can restore high-res audio from the ashes of burned tapes?

 

You need to have the ashes first.

[Rt66indierock]

16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Wait, you guys are still pushing the DRM angle?

 

One of those posts that advances an agenda just not one you want advanced.

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

One of those posts that advances an agenda just not one you want advanced.

 

Well it's true that its pushing an agenda and I don't want it. I'm just into a better sound agenda. Wish there was less non-audiophiles trying to bury it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Well it's true that its pushing an agenda and I don't want it. I'm just into a better sound agenda. Wish there was less non-audiophiles trying to bury it.

I see MQA like very refined sugar. Sweet and tasty at first. People want more. Once you learn more and listen more, you change your mind. Perhaps a steady diet of sugar isn’t a good thing. 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I see MQA like very refined sugar.

 

Then MQA would be very refined audio.

Now here does that go wrong. 

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

You need to have the ashes first.

England and Australia have been fighting for them since 1882.

[John Dyson]

20 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Well it's true that its pushing an agenda and I don't want it. I'm just into a better sound agenda. Wish there was less non-audiophiles trying to bury it.

I am someone who works on better/improved audio processing technology -- MQA isn't a way of providing improved audio...  Period.

MQA is a money siphoning scheme, does not benefit sound quality...  Period.

MQA is a poor compression scheme as compression schemes go...  Period.

MQA is a curiosity as invented to increase profits for a group of people and uses a false elitism.

There is a new story similar in some ways to  'emperors new clothes', it is called the MQA story.

(There are probably some interesting mathematical attributes, but of no real benefit to the audio listener.)

 

MQA is not intended to benefit the audio listeners in ANY way...  PERIOD.

MQA succeeds very well in not benefiting audio listeners in ANY way...  PERIOD.

(When it comes to the details of audio processing, I either already know it, or within an hour of remembering the details -- I do make mistakes about my memory -- I am not mistaking MQA for what it is -- 'snow job'/'emperors new clothes', etc.)

 

John

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Then MQA would be very refined audio.

Now here does that go wrong. 

Yes, so refined and folded over its missing all the good ingredients. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Applies only to those who signed it:

 

 

mqascan and related tools

the Archimago article exposing the filters and the fact that the second unfold is a modified upsampler and no new content is being recovered in the 2e unfold

 

"..the Archimago article exposing the filters and the fact that the second unfold is a modified upsampler and no new content is being recovered in the 2e unfold."

 

it seems John Atkinson never read the article. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

They are afraid of making enemies, just in case MQA support were to become a necessity. Even Charley Hansen was cautious about publicly criticising MQA in the beginning.

....in the beginning.....😎

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Is it true that MQA can restore high-res audio from the ashes of burned tapes?

 

It's like "deblurring".

 

In MQA speak it's " de-ashing".

[GUTB]

20 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I am someone who works on better/improved audio processing technology -- MQA isn't a way of providing improved audio...  Period.

MQA is a money siphoning scheme, does not benefit sound quality...  Period.

MQA is a poor compression scheme as compression schemes go...  Period.

MQA is a curiosity as invented to increase profits for a group of people and uses a false elitism.

There is a new story similar in some ways to  'emperors new clothes', it is called the MQA story.

(There are probably some interesting mathematical attributes, but of no real benefit to the audio listener.)

 

MQA is not intended to benefit the audio listeners in ANY way...  PERIOD.

MQA succeeds very well in not benefiting audio listeners in ANY way...  PERIOD.

(When it comes to the details of audio processing, I either already know it, or within an hour of remembering the details -- I do make mistakes about my memory -- I am not mistaking MQA for what it is -- 'snow job'/'emperors new clothes', etc.)

 

John

 

1. Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system which shows our time domain acuity is far higher than our frequency domain acuity. Do you disagree with that research? Does MQA not improve time domain resolution?

 

2. Another part of MQA is the idea that almost all meaningful music data exists up to around 50 kHz and past that it's mostly just noise. Do you disagree with this? Does MQA not accurately re-construct up to around 50 kHz?

 

3. Undoubtedly the people who developed MQA want to make money off it. Do you disagree with it?

 

4. The point of the Emperor's New Clothes is that no one was willing to point out the Emperor was naked. There wasn't a forum full of anti-Emperor activists posting non-stop about the Empror being naked.

 

5. MQA is intended to benefit listeners by improving sound quality and also to provide wider distribution / accessibility to high-resolution audio. Do you disagree? Is improved sound quality just an incidental unintended effect?

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

1. Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system which shows our time domain acuity is far higher than our frequency domain acuity. Do you disagree with that research? Does MQA not improve time domain resolution?

 

2. Another part of MQA is the idea that almost all meaningful music data exists up to around 50 kHz and past that it's mostly just noise. Do you disagree with this? Does MQA not accurately re-construct up to around 50 kHz?

 

3. Undoubtedly the people who developed MQA want to make money off it. Do you disagree with it?

 

4. The point of the Emperor's New Clothes is that no one was willing to point out the Emperor. There wasn't a forum full of anti-Emperor activists posting non-stop about the Empror being naked.

 

5. MQA is intended to benefit listeners by improving sound quality and also to provide wider distribution / accessibility to high-resolution audio. Do you disagree? Is improved sound quality just an incidental unintended effect?

 

Meet the new shill. Same as the old shill. 

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

1. Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system which shows our time domain acuity is far higher than our frequency domain acuity. Do you disagree with that research? Does MQA not improve time domain resolution?

 

2. Another part of MQA is the idea that almost all meaningful music data exists up to around 50 kHz and past that it's mostly just noise. Do you disagree with this? Does MQA not accurately re-construct up to around 50 kHz?

 

3. Undoubtedly the people who developed MQA want to make money off it. Do you disagree with it?

 

4. The point of the Emperor's New Clothes is that no one was willing to point out the Emperor. There wasn't a forum full of anti-Emperor activists posting non-stop about the Empror being naked.

 

5. MQA is intended to benefit listeners by improving sound quality and also to provide wider distribution / accessibility to high-resolution audio. Do you disagree? Is improved sound quality just an incidental unintended effect?

 

 

Your entire premise is based on fallacies.  None of your "givens" are given.

 

MQA alters the music.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, KeenObserver said:

 

Your entire premise is based on fallacies.  None of your "givens" are given.

 

MQA alters the music.

...I don't think he can really hear anything anyway...just look at his Frankestein system, coupled with bizarre theories about audio...

[jabbr]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

1. Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system which shows our time domain acuity is far higher than our frequency domain acuity. Do you disagree with that research? Does MQA not improve time domain resolution?

 

No “temporal deblurring” in MQA is pure fiction (some have have been doing actual deblurring for >30 years)

 

MQA is merely MP3 2.0 also based on human auditory system research  

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

No “temporal deblurring” in MQA is pure fiction (some have have been doing actual deblurring for >30 years)

 

MQA is merely MP3 2.0 also based on human auditory system research  

But...BUT..based on playback of MQA CDs with a cheap Chinese CD player, it is the bomb!