MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

One of the great things about open forums is that you get to see how folks really think habitually.  Trade publication "writers" such as @ARQuintstill believe they get to define the narrative, how that narrative should proceed, and when it does not go their way what is and what is not "civil".  There is not a hint of awarness - not one tiny little bit - of the failure on his part and his cohorts to see MQA coming, to see what it is, to see the how and why of consumers rejection of it, etc.  He still is shooting the messengers on the one hand and consumers (his readers!) on the other.  

 

All that said this Old Guard model is a going $concern$ and will be until it is not.  One thing they are trying to tell us (and some of us are listening) is that they have no intention of examining the what and how of their immovable support for MQA and the conditions that lead to their continued promotion of it.

 

 

 

It’s clear that most of the old guard just doesn’t understand online communities or the members of these communities. I have no interest in educating them just as I assume they have no interest in learning. 

[WAM]

8 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Seems like the discussion continues to go in a circle. Tested and proven issues with MQA are responded to with obfuscation and misdirection.

When talk turns to the value ( cost, actually) of MQA to the music consumer, MQA promoters point out Bigfoot.

It is tiresome responding to the same BS over and over again.  But that is probably the point.

 

Makes me think of W.C. Fields:

 

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

(sorry guys, couldn't resist 😎)

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

Come on, John. We've been around the block more than a few times on these topics -- well, maybe not this one, so let me have a go.

 

You casually mention it in the technical measurements, by your own admission here. But have you actually put something in bold like you did with "MQA's Sound Convinces Hardened Showgoers" or the umpteen other articles that trumpeted this brave new digital world?

 

 

I think in service of the readers, and article about this titled something like "Warning to DAC Purchasers - Watch Out for How MQA Is Implement In Your DAC" might've brought the subject more to the forefront. 

 

And in case you think that's not necessarily your job to (I would think the Technical Editor would willfully explore these subjects in great detail), your boss, Paul Miller, did a good job of bringing to light the aliasing artifacts that can arise from the MQA process -- and even allowed me to reprint it with permission in my article.

 

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1104-mismatched-masters-and-false-frequencies-is-mqa-better-worse-or-just-different

 

I think if servicing the readers is #1, the pros and cons should be equally distributed. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

Doug Schneider

SoundStage!

 

Interesting how JA uses refers to this issue as "this problem", yet his publication did not say it was a problem as such, they just noted it...in the context of Stereophiles otherwise breathless promotion...so a reader would read this qualification in the positive and not negative.

 

That said, JA and the rest have truly dug themselves a hole and they are going to mine their current and past promotion of MQA for anything that can be interpreted as them reporting a "con" to MQA.  It won't work, there is too little there...

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

It’s clear that most of the old guard just doesn’t understand online communities or the members of these communities. I have no interest in educating them just as I assume they have no interest in learning. 

 

Not only do they not have interest, they have scolded, cajoled, and otherwise attempted to force you into a re-education about how your supposed to manage your forum, the consumers who post here, and your relationship to the industry.  Thankfully, resistance is not futile 😉

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Not only do they not have interest, they have scolded, cajoled, and otherwise attempted to force you into a re-education about how your supposed to manage your forum, the consumers who post here, and your relationship to the industry.  Thankfully, resistance is not futile 😉

 

I always enjoy when the old guard parachutes into a topic and explains how I should do my job and that I should control this community. 

[Doug Schneider]

17 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Interesting how JA uses refers to this issue as "this problem", yet his publication did not say it was a problem as such, they just noted it...in the context of Stereophiles otherwise breathless promotion...so a reader would read this qualification in the positive and not negative.

I think "breathless promotion" sums up what clued me into this whole MQA thing. Frankly, back when this whole thing was beginning, it was a sideline thing to me, but then a couple manufacturers literally called me up and asked, "Why are these magazines promoting this MQA thing so heavily." So I started looking into it and my eyes opened wide -- questionable listening tests and the publication of articles like this one (which I just Googled and quickly came up):

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers

 

The TAS articles were worse, though.

 

Has any non-proven, questionable technology EVER been given this type of platform -- with no one on the other side in those same places saying "Wait, hold on, let's see what's really here." I don't recall it. "Breathless promotion" seems right.

 

I've taught my two boys an important lesson -- when you make a mistake, face up to it and admit it. Seems like the only way out.

 

Likewise, if I thought I made a mistake a few years ago when I started questioning MQA, I would admit it RIGHT NOW. But on this topic, I don't feel I have.

 

Doug Schneider

SoundStage!

[crenca]

19 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

I think "breathless promotion" sums up what clued me into this whole MQA thing. Frankly, it was a sideline thing to me, but then a couple manufacturers literally called me up and asked, "Why are these magazines promoting this MQA thing so strongly." So I started looking into it and my eyes opened wide -- questionable listening tests and the publication of articles like this one (which I just Googled and quickly came up):

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers

 

The TAS articles were worse, though.

 

But has any non-proven, questionable technology EVER been given this type of platform -- with no one on the other side in those same places saying "Wait, hold on, let's see what's really here." I don't recall it.

 

I've taught my two boys an important lesson -- when you make a mistake, face up to it and admit it. Seems like the only way out.

 

Likewise, if I thought I made a mistake a few years ago when I started questioning MQA, I would admit it RIGHT NOW. But on this topic, I don't feel I have.

 

Doug Schneider

SoundStage!

 

Have you ever parsed this article Doug:

 

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/master-quality-authenticated-mqa-the-view-from-30000-feet/

 

Harley, rather he understands this or not, spilt the insiders beans so to speak.

 

On the one hand, he does a good job of explaining what MQA is really about, protecting the "crown jewels" and the industry as such over and against consumers.  On the other hand, he with a straight face tells us it is in consumers best interests to accept DRM (while he incroguently denies it is DRM) and by the way, we get a pretty good superMP3 out of the deal (and this part is true - MQA is a pretty good lossy format as far as lossy goes).

 

Clearly these two editors (JA and Harley), and most of their writers bought into kind of meta idea - what's wrong with the industry and how to fix it - fully when they were told that MQA is an integral part of the fix.

 

What's sort of odd is how they lost themselves in this narrative.  They lost all 'common sense' skepticism that one would expect and is normally there, even given their industry first commitments...

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I always enjoy when the old guard parachutes into a topic and explains how I should do my job and that I should control this community. 

Like other enlightened people in this world, you seem to have made the evolutionary stride recognizing that mutual respect develops a deeper following than attempting to be a controlling high priest.  Understanding our mutual/personal limits will create actual, real relationships.

 

It might not make the enlighted people as rich as the snake oil advocates -- but there is something more to life than profiteering or overly inflating a sense of control or ego.   I lost my own sense of materialism back about 2 decades ago when I actually did start becoming fairly rich -- realizing that even though it is better than being very poor, it isn't really healthy mindset (esp for me.)  I had toys that produced better video than typically produced for broadcast use at the time (didn't need that kind of quality for day-to-day OTA or even LD.)  The toys, that I had always wanted, never made me happy -- but I learned a lot about myself.  Extravagent toys are just not where it is for me (and probably more people than would admit.)

 

Now -- I care more about helping, being beneficial, doing NEW things -- not re-inventing with yet another preamp or somesuch, and being kind when possible.

 

Frankly, making the assuption that the MQA advocacy are nice people (most probably they are), and are technically competent (maybe/maybe not), I cannot understand the reason -- except being deceived at first, why an independent party would advocate MQA.  I doubt that even greed is the reason.  The 'latest toy syndrome' (like what I had) is also not the reason.  Next paragraph for the only reason that seems probable to me:

 

My guess - some of the MQA advocates who are also good people who really care, simply are dug-in on their position.  Egos are sometimes difficult to overcome -- but it is best to correct a mistaken position sooner rather than later.

 

John

 

[rickca]

28 minutes ago, WAM said:

 

Makes me think of W.C. Fields:

 

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

(sorry guys, couldn't resist 😎)

And from Warren Buffett:

If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.

[botrytis]

I am sometimes a 16 lb sledgehammer, when I react. It is hard to be subtle when you can't see peoples mannerisms or body language. I think Chris is trying to be open and pretty lenient on how things go on this forum. That I really appreciate and say thanks!

 

Back to the OT.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

MQA is a pretty good lossy format as far as lossy goes

In terms of quality loss vs size reduction, it's actually one of the worst. In fact, I can't think of any other format that increases the size while losing quality.

[Arken]

Sure that's not condescending at all.  

[Doug Schneider]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Have you ever parsed this article Doug:

 

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/master-quality-authenticated-mqa-the-view-from-30000-feet/

I remember that -- it was something. But nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- comes close to this:

 

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/

Doug

[Doug Schneider]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

In terms of quality loss vs size reduction, it's actually one of the worst. In fact, I can't think of any other format that increases the size while losing quality.

If I recall, someone compared an 18-bit/96kHz FLAC file to an MQA file and found that it was smaller. Hmmmm...

 

Doug

[Doug Schneider]

Something that's always baffled me about the MQA debate are the champions who proclaim that somehow MQA is NOT PCM-based. That it's something beyond.

Let's see...

 

- you take a PCM file of whatever resolution...

 

- you compress it using a lossy technique to a proprietary format...

 

- you then uncompress it back to a reasonable facsimile of the original PCM file and that plays back.

 

And what isn't PCM about it?

Doug

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Doug Schneider said:

I remember that -- it was something. But nothing -- and meaning NOTHING -- comes close to this:

 

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/

Doug

 

True, but that is article is pure promotion, through and through.  It's so absurd you can't parody it.  Also, I don't see how Harley or his publication can truly recover from it except perhaps a very forthright and honest

 

"We were completely duped - we never had nor ever will have the technical competence to make such technical and analogical claims.  We apologize to Einstein, Kuhn, Copernicus, and all the other scientists we used and abused in promoting this fraud. Also our motivations and interests were in the wrong place - we were wholly anti-consumer, and on top of that anti-industry as well because whatever ills this industry will never be solved by a fraud of any kind..."

 

The earlier article however reveals more about Harley's motivations - the real problem (which is an market problem) that motivates him around MQA.

[jabbr]

48 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

It’s clear that most of the old guard just doesn’t understand online communities or the members of these communities. I have no interest in educating them just as I assume they have no interest in learning. 

 

They may not be able to learn and thus destined to fade into an evolutionary dead end. If they are able to learn they will learn by participating. The harder they feebly try to change the MQA story here, the stronger the counter reaction. The more feeble ideas are posted, the more counter arguments respond and the consensus for a neutral third party reading this thread is that there is strong intelligent (or simply passionate) reaction against MQA. Organizations like Apple seem to understand the mob better than others eg Sony. The only way to really push the envelope is to really push it with clearcut unambiguous value, not empty promises.

 

 

[FredericV]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

This article on Audioholics about some Dolby shenanigans has relevance for any closed format, including MQA:

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-widthdraws-from-restricting-non-native-upmixing-a-win-for-consumers

I have an Anthem AVM60 as processor in my 11.2 home cinema. When I heard about the initial restriction, I decided not to update the firmware of my Anthem, which felt like a downgrade with more DRM. It felt like MQA.

It's good that Dolby withdraws.

I really like the DTS Neural upmixer applied on most of the Dolby formats.
Too bad there are so few movies with DTS X which is the Atmos competitor. In a movie like Nerve, DTS X provides a wall of sound, in the beginning where they play the Soap track (the relevant part starts at 02:10):
 

 

[Rt66indierock]

13 minutes ago, rickca said:

And from Warren Buffett:

If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.

 

If you walk into a room and can't tell who the mark is, you are the mark. Nice to remember three of my teenage years when my occupation was professional gambler. 

 

At an audio show the trick is to figure out who isn't a patsy.

[botrytis]

20 minutes ago, Arken said:

Sure that's not condescending at all.  

 

No it is just blunt and there is a difference.

[John Dyson]

17 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

I remember that -- it was something. But nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- comes close to this:

 

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/

Doug

Crazy, over blown sophistry comes to mind.  I sure hope that self awareness and self respect would help the advocates for the 'cause' to pull back a little.

 

John

[John Dyson]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

True, but that is article is pure promotion, through and through.  It's so absurd you can't parody it.  Also, I don't see how Harley or his publication can truly recover from it except perhaps a very forthright and honest

 

"We were completely duped - we never had nor ever will have the technical competence to make such technical and analogical claims.  We apologize to Einstein, Kuhn, Copernicus, and all the other scientists we used and abused in promoting this fraud. Also our motivations and interests were in the wrong place - we were wholly anti-consumer, and on top of that anti-industry as well because whatever ills this industry will never be solved by a fraud of any kind..."

 

The earlier article however reveals more about Harley's motivations - the real problem (which is an market problem) that motivates him around MQA.

That 'reset' would be the best thing that they could do for themselves (and the community.)  My respect for them would certainly go up more than a few notches.

[FredericV]

10 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

Something that's always baffled me about the MQA debate are the champions who proclaim that somehow MQA is NOT PCM-based. That it's something beyond.

Let's see...

 

- you take a PCM file of whatever resolution...

 

- you compress it using a lossy technique to a proprietary format...

 

- you then uncompress it back to a reasonable facsimile of the original PCM file and that plays back.

 

And what isn't PCM about it?

Doug

 

That's the whole joke .... they claim it's better than PCM, but as it's based on PCM, it has to abide by the laws of PCM and thus PCM based sampling.

As MQA's second unfold is just upsampling and nothing more (no further musical content is recovered), and the first unfold resolves to something like 17/96, by consquence MQA can't encode an analog signal let's say at 55 Khz.

Furthermore some of the MQA evangelists still do not get how the folding works, believing there's a third unfold.  I recently contacted Hans Beekhuyzen to address his mistake, but he has failed to correct his article:

This is complete BS:

 

http://thehbproject.com/nl/artikelen/38/6/MQA---Kwaliteitsgarantie

To bury data below 144dB you would need a 32 bit distribution file instead of the 24 bit MQA distribution files.
There is no third unfold.
Hans does not learn from his mistakes
He is not interested in telling the truth

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Crazy, over blown sophistry comes to mind.  I sure hope that self awareness and self respect would help the advocates for the 'cause' to pull back a little.

 

John

 

Just now, John Dyson said:

That 'reset' would be the best thing that they could do for themselves (and the community.)  My respect for them would certainly go up more than a few notches.

 

You would think John that such a thing would have already occured, out of fear/self preservation if not (more positively) self awareness/respect.  All that we have seen is a continual doubling down.

 

This is why the cultural stuff is important.  They promote themselves, and we like to think of them as, just "audiophiles".  They are not, they are "trade promoters" and they do what they see is in the trades best interest 1st, 2nd, and last.  

 

In a sense they are right - both their customers and their readers are part of a luxury niche market and not a real hobbyist pursuit of high fidelity.   A luxury market is all about feeling good about an otherwise absurd and impractical purchase.  Even more, a luxury buyer wants to be conned, because he is not paying for truth (such as fidelity) he is paying for image, ego, and the like....he knows he is getting a reach around while being pumped up the arse...

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

If I recall, someone compared an 18-bit/96kHz FLAC file to an MQA file and found that it was smaller. Hmmmm...

With a 96 kHz input, MQA manages to pretty much keep the size unchanged and lose only a little. An MQA file made from a 48 kHz master, and there are many, is significantly larger than a plain FLAC of the same original.