MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

34 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

In Biochemistry - Ethics is one topic that is covered. I do have a PhD in Fungal Biochemistry.

 

I occasionally teach ethics as CPE for CPAs.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Arken said:

I couldn't take it any longer i had to see what all the fuss is about. So i went out and got myself a cheap Mqa dac capable of unfolding Mqa files. More specifically a Pioject S2. So i get it all hooked up last night . Not knowing what to expect  i turn on Tidal, get all the settings right and turn it on to find out that it sounds really good. Dammit, i mean really good. I'm feeling guilty. Ive been told by people a a lot smarter than me that it's all bullshit. I am going to do some more listening this weekend. I have it hooked in a way where i can go back and forth between my Lks 004 and the Project S2. I am going to hate this thing if it kills me lol  

Remember, there’s no way judge complete formats. What tracks did you listen to?

 

also, remember that some MQA sounds far different from those who worked on the album say it should sound. If you like a flavor other than what the artist intended that’s totally OK. But, we shouldn’t mandate a flavor for everyone and that’s what MQA does. 

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I occasionally teach ethics as CPE for CPAs.  

 

The grad school, I went to, students had to take courses in ethics.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Remember, there’s no way judge complete formats. What tracks did you listen to?

 

also, remember that some MQA sounds far different from those who worked on the album say it should sound. If you like a flavor other than what the artist intended that’s totally OK. But, we shouldn’t mandate a flavor for everyone and that’s what MQA does. 

 

Excellent point. 

[Rt66indierock]

I shill it all. I shill it all.

 

I was shilling when I should have been buying.

 

Apologies  to old crow medicine show and Uriah Heep.

 

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

I gave you a laughing thumbs up because we don't have a "press" in audiophiledom and the JA's are not "journalists", they are trade promoters.  

 

This is why your article/summary as a challenge to them is a non-starter, at least in how you meant it.  It is a challenge of course, but only as an obstacle in their jobs/careers as promoters of MQA and any and all other industry/trade concerns.

 

Their vehement denials of direct compensation and affirmations of "professionalism" have to be understood in the correct context - what the JA's really do.  Page after page of scolding them for not admitting the truth of MQA really is so much tilting at windmills because it assumes that they are "journalists" or "press" and thus are committed to the truth.

 

They are professionals.  Professional salesmen.

 

edit:  when they do leave their wheelhouse of sales and get into the truth of MQA, their limitations are laid bare.  When it comes to digital/software/IP and the like, they are technically incompetent.

 

Your're absolutely right, @crenca. As interesting as the suggestion may be for Mans to write an article and submit... That's not "our" job! Mans and others here have shared more than needed already.

 

This thread is long-running with over 700 pages. The topic has drawn the attention of many audiophiles and has been commented on by professional studio engineers (eg. Lucey, Waldrep). The technique has been questioned by well known audio designers (eg. Putzeys). Articles have been published on either side of the "debate". The facts have evolved over this time with many points worth considering - technical, discussion on rights control, even ethical around advertising and Industry.

 

As "journalists" who presumably are interested in objectivity, truth, and investigation (actual substance), one would imagine that they should be the ones reaching out, asking questions, producing articles as independent agents in search of disseminating understanding and presenting in detail the value of MQA for their readership to consider. When there are criticisms (even as @FredericVshowed, a non-controversial one like the fact that bits can be missing and the thing still "authenticates"!), where are the journalists independently verifying such an important defect?

 

Many of you over the years have contacted me directly over PM to clarify comments and we've had some nice chats. @The Computer Audiophile obviously saw the interest and was open to investigations and having information shared, thus the invitation to write the front page article. I've had discussions with hardware manufacturers over the years who PM'ed me after they saw the article here. But never a private word from the likes of the JA's to show that maybe they are truly wanting to clarify if I have ulterior motives or show interest in whether some of my claims may be inaccurate.

 

They seem to prefer hanging out here to question anonymity, suggest that maybe there are other motives like perhaps competitors might be spreading negative press. Yes, @Jim Austin, you can complain about "rabid online persona" (this goes both ways of course), but isn't it better to take leadership and show that as a journalist one can rise above that and address the issues plainly? Show by action why indeed there is no need to be critical if you believe that this is the case?

 

For me as simply an "audiophile" like most of you guys (I guess I just have the time and energy to write some articles 🙂), not only are the words written by the audiophile press in line with Industry promotion, but the nature of their actions speak louder than those words. Clearly a very strange form of "journalism" particularly when it comes to dealing with MQA (I think there are many other examples as well).

 

Here's a brief video on ethical journalism. Is this on the whole representative of the traditional audiophile press?

 

 

[Jud]

Is there any question that mainstream journalism would be all over a story that a new product promoted as a vast improvement was demonstrably, on solid technical grounds, not so? A new heavily promoted drug, for example? Of course audio isn't medicine, but that isn't what audio magazines write about.

 

I have no factual basis to speculate on motives, and won't do so. It is more than sufficient by itself to say that here is a story real journalists would fall over themselves to report, and the audio magazines have clearly done the opposite.

[Rt66indierock]

17 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Your're absolutely right, @crenca. As interesting as the suggestion may be for Mans to write an article and submit... That's not "our" job! Mans and others here have shared more than needed already.

 

This thread is long-running with over 700 pages. The topic has drawn the attention of many audiophiles and has been commented on by professional studio engineers (eg. Lucey, Waldrep). The technique has been questioned by well known audio designers (eg. Putzeys). Articles have been published on either side of the "debate". The facts have evolved over this time with many points worth considering - technical, discussion on rights control, even ethical around advertising and Industry.

 

As "journalists" who presumably are interested in objectivity, truth, and investigation (actual substance), one would imagine that they should be the ones reaching out, asking questions, producing articles as independent agents in search of disseminating understanding and presenting in detail the value of MQA for their readership to consider. When there are criticisms (even as @FredericVshowed, a non-controversial one like the fact that bits can be missing and the thing still "authenticates"!), where are the journalists independently verifying such an important defect?

 

Many of you over the years have contacted me directly over PM to clarify comments and we've had some nice chats. @The Computer Audiophile obviously saw the interest and was open to investigations and having information shared, thus the invitation to write the front page article. I've had discussions with hardware manufacturers over the years who PM'ed me after they saw the article here. But never a private word from the likes of the JA's to show that maybe they are truly wanting to clarify if I have ulterior motives or show interest in whether some of my claims may be inaccurate.

 

They seem to prefer hanging out here to question anonymity, suggest that maybe there are other motives like perhaps competitors might be spreading negative press. Yes, @Jim Austin, you can complain about "rabid online persona" (this goes both ways of course), but isn't it better to take leadership and show that as a journalist one can rise above that and address the issues plainly? Show by action why indeed there is no need to be critical if you believe that this is the case?

 

For me as simply an "audiophile" like most of you guys (I guess I just have the time and energy to write some articles 🙂), not only are the words written by the audiophile press in line with Industry promotion, but the nature of their actions speak louder than those words. Clearly a very strange form of "journalism" when it comes to dealing with MQA.

 

Here's a brief video on ethical journalism. Is this on the whole representative of the traditional audiophile press?

 

 

 

I don’t give them a passing grade on core values but I’m a pretty hash critic of the press especially the mainstream American press.

[Rt66indierock]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

Is there any question that mainstream journalism would be all over a story that a new product promoted as a vast improvement was demonstrably, on solid technical grounds, not so? A new heavily promoted drug, for example? Of course audio isn't medicine, but that isn't what audio magazines write about.

 

I have no factual basis to speculate on motives, and won't do so. It is more than sufficient by itself to say that here is a story real journalists would fall over themselves to report, and the audio magazines have clearly done the opposite.

 

Jud audio magazines are produced by formula and a story opposing MQA doesn’t fit the formula. They would not know how to cover a story that something was wrong in high end audio.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

Is there any question that mainstream journalism would be all over a story that a new product promoted as a vast improvement was demonstrably, on solid technical grounds, not so? A new heavily promoted drug, for example? Of course audio isn't medicine, but that isn't what audio magazines write about.

 

I have no factual basis to speculate on motives, and won't do so. It is more than sufficient by itself to say that here is a story real journalists would fall over themselves to report, and the audio magazines have clearly done the opposite.

So true. 

 

At some point one has to follow the money. Perhaps that point should be the first step in anything, including those reading what I write. I have no issues with people being skeptical and asking questions. 

 

I’m not suggesting direct payments but hey, even I’ve been asked if there was anything that could be done for me. As in, “Is there anything we can do for you?” During a conversation about @Archimago‘s article. 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m not suggesting direct payments but hey, even I’ve been asked if there was anything that could be done for me. As in, “Is there anything we can do for you?” During a conversation about @Archimago‘s article. 

If that's not an offer of money, I don't know what it is. Well, I suppose it could be an offer to have someone "taken care of."

[botrytis]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

If that's not an offer of money, I don't know what it is. Well, I suppose it could be an offer to have someone "taken care of."

[Thuaveta]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

If that's not an offer of money, I don't know what it is.

 

Access. "Scoops". Nice dinners. "Long-term" "review" gear (that someone could then buy at a discount, and sell after they purchase another piece of "review" gear for their "reference" system). The possibilities are endless... let us convince you of how much better you could have it if you were nice to us...

[The Computer Audiophile]

48 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Access. "Scoops". Nice dinners. "Long-term" "review" gear (that someone could then buy at a discount, and sell after they purchase another piece of "review" gear for their "reference" system). The possibilities are endless... let us convince you of how much better you could have it if you were nice to us...

We went to dinner in Munich a couple years ago with some other HiFi writers. It was brought up in the same conversation. 

 

Dinner didn’t work on me though. 

[botrytis]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We went to dinner in Munich a couple years ago with some other HiFi writers. It was brought up in the same conversation. 

 

Dinner didn’t work on me though. 

 

Similar thing. I was invited to a party at the house of a CEO that makes equipment for Bioremediation. The house was San Clemente, Nixon's western WH. As it turned out, I was invited since I was with some EPA scientists and they thought I was one too (I was a contractor for the EPA at the time). So, I got invited and went. None of the EPA people came along. Since the house was 2 hrs from San Diego where the meeting was taking place, buses were provided. When they found out I was just a contractor, they let me be to enjoy the party, but others were rushed into the house for a special meeting, I was not.

[christopher3393]

48 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We went to dinner in Munich a couple years ago with some other HiFi writers. It was brought up in the same conversation. 

 

Dinner didn’t work on me though. 

 

They need to do more focused background research.

 

[kumakuma]

 

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Is there any question that mainstream journalism would be all over a story that a new product promoted as a vast improvement was demonstrably, on solid technical grounds, not so? A new heavily promoted drug, for example? Of course audio isn't medicine, but that isn't what audio magazines write about.

 

I have no factual basis to speculate on motives, and won't do so. It is more than sufficient by itself to say that here is a story real journalists would fall over themselves to report, and the audio magazines have clearly done the opposite.

 

This is not surprising when you consider the business model used by publications like this.

 

Subscriptions are essentially given away with revenue coming primarily from advertising and renting their mailing lists:

 

https://lists.nextmark.com/market?page=order/online/datacard&id=311549

https://lists.nextmark.com/market?page=order/online/datacard&id=264754

 

As I believe @crenca said, subscribers are really little more than a product to be sold although Stereophile's rate card does says:

 

Quote

STEREOPHILE never loses sight of the fact that its primary responsibility is toward its readers and how they choose to spend their hard-earned money.

 

If nothing else, this whole MQA debacle has proven how little these magazines care about their readers.

[Ralf11]

How about a concise repris of the DRM aspect?

 

MQA opens the door to DRM.

 

I understand that the file fingerprinting in MQA allows DRM (tho it is claimed to be only for higher SQ).

 

But, why is DRM so bad for consumers?  DRM benefits the owners of the music by reducing piracy.  (Note the musicians are often not the owners of the music).

 

But let us list specifics against DRM.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

How about a concise repris of the DRM aspect?

 

MQA opens the door to DRM.

 

I understand that the file fingerprinting in MQA allows DRM (tho it is claimed to be only for higher SQ).

 

But, why is DRM so bad for consumers?  DRM benefits the owners of the music by reducing piracy.  (Note the musicians are often not the owners of the music).

 

But let us list specifics against DRM.

The most recent example of consequences of DRM: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48829661

It's not the first time this has happened, and it's unlikely to be the last.

 

Google "the books will stop working" for additional coverage. The simple absurdity of that phrase nicely sums up what is wrong with DRM.

[The Computer Audiophile]

People in HiFi got burned by the DRM in MusicGiants downloads. None of the music is playable anymore unless one strips the DRM. 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

People in HiFi got burned by the DRM in MusicGiants downloads. None of the music is playable anymore unless one strips the DRM. 

Which, at least in the US, is illegal.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Which, at least in the US, is illegal.

When a company goes under, it's only the consumers who are screwed and without recourse. There's nobody to go after.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

When a company goes under, it's only the consumers who are screwed and without recourse. There's nobody to go after.

Your response puzzles me. If you remove DRM protections from a file, you are breaking the law, even if the company that sold it no longer exists.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Your response puzzles me. If you remove DRM protections from a file, you are breaking the law, even if the company that sold it no longer exists.

I miss understood where you were going. Please disregard my comment.

[mansr]

This is where some shill is supposed to crawl out of the woodwork and point out that MQA (as distributed today) doesn't have per-play authorisation and thus won't suddenly stop working in this manner. That is true. However, it is still a proprietary format. Sooner or later, it will be impossible to buy a new DAC with MQA support. If your old DAC breaks, you're screwed. The same goes for software decoders. At some point, the last Audirvana version to support MQA will no longer run on the latest OS releases. Again, your MQA files become unplayable.

 

If you don't believe this will happen, go to https://samples.libav.org/ and grab a few files at random. See how many will play in Jriver, for instance.