MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

My point about the banner ads is that the "objectivists" often weren't compatible with them.

 

Example:

 

Q) Is a DAC that costs as much as a car worth the money?

 

The "subjectivist" response would typically be something along the lines of, "OMG, have you **listened** to one?"

 

The "objectivist" response would typically be something along the lines of, "No way.  And the manufacturer certainly hasn't proved that it is".

 

Which response is more compatible with the banner ads?

Defining worth is not an objective pursuit. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Nope.  Value.

 

"Worth" is a subjective construct.

"Value" is an objective construct.

 

See the difference?

 

Only going by what you said. 

 

15 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Q) Is a DAC that costs as much as a car worth the money?

 

 

Define value however you want. If a $300,000 Bentley is a value to someone, then it's a value to someone. Nobody gets to define value for others. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Iving said:

The banners/ads had nothing to do with it.

 

"Science" (most of which was ostensible) - even objectivity - had nothing to do with it.

 

The problem was antisocial behaviour - stifling free participation for all.

 

It was antisocial behaviour that got marginalised by Chris - in the end.

 

Nothing would have been marginalised but for antisocial behaviour.

YES!

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Did anyone go and see this session,

I see it was held virtually, anyone know who the award "wining" mastering engineers are in the commercial recording world using MQA to create their finished work ?

Perhaps it was recorded and is available somewhere. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Value is objective.  "How much will you pay me for this DAC that I bought?  I spent as much as a car!"

 

vs.

 

"I wouldn't part with this amazing DAC for all the money in the world".  <-- worth, not value.

 

Saying something is a value is different from the value of that thing. We could go around all day  on this one.

 

mQa was perceived as valuable to original investors. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Norton said:

Was anyone banned? I thought they just flounced out?

A couple were probably banned. I know one guy intentionally tried to hurt the site with some posts, so I had to ban him. This is different from those who just couldn't stop from being antisocial. Most, either left or asked for their accounts to be removed, or similar. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, JoshM said:

As someone who (unfortunately) has a masters in journalism, I think this misunderstands how digital media works. Clicks and engagement are the name of the game. Sites can charge for advertising more based on those metrics, because it means more eyes will see the site.

Ever wonder why terrible opinion columnists have long careers, or why stories like “My Wife and I Make $4.2 Million Per Year, But We’re Barely Getting By” and “Here’s Why I Let My Toddler Watch Hardcore Porn” get published? It’s because hate clicks are often the most reliable clicks. People love to argue in the comments or post things they hate on Twitter. 

 

If Chris were to ask me, as a business decision, whether to let people go at each other in threads, I’d probably say “yes”! So, it’s silly to say he tried to calm things down because of banner ads. He’d almost certainly be able to charge more for banner ads if he let warring camps draw blood!
 

Finally, as someone who writes for the site, I can say that Chris has never — literally never — changed a word in a review of mine. Nor has he told me what to review. Indeed, he doesn’t ask me to let him know what I’m reviewing or what I think ahead of time! I buy a piece of equipment, decide to review it, write what I want, and then send it to him. I never had to think or ask “Is it okay to say a ___ is great even though they don’t advertise on AS” or vice versa. 

Now to bring it all home. 
 

headline I just saw:

 

 

 

His music is available in mQa:

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

mQa, like many modern corporations, are ready with plenty superficial environment buzz language that doesn't bear scutiny.

Here JBara says:

Today we are twice as polluting! We generate more than two times the greenhouse gas emissions as we did then [CD era] ... We’ve all grown up in an environment digitally where we forget that the cloud is made up of cables and servers and energy generation. A very non-green, non-clean environment, which is why we have to be stewards of even the data utilisation in the digital world, if we really want to have a positive impact.

 

Sounds great! But of course it's all PUFF.

 

I'm interested in the SUBSTANTIAL arguments (either way). I suggested myself, from a primitive starting point, that lots more/replacement black boxes with beguiling blue lights means future massive, unnecessary carbon footprint. Exactly how - and by exactly how much - does mQa (assuming its smaller file size claims are justified) reduce vs. enhance generic footprint of streaming or mQa CD play. Smaller HDDs and CDs with fewer bits - attributable to mQa - are going to save the planet? The footprint mitigation of fewer bits must be miniscule compared with the cost of running servers 24/7, the electricity powering CD players, manufacturing new mQa equipment, number-crunching digital masters into mQa format - the whole consumption gamut of the house-of-blue-lights show.

 

Here JBara appeals surreptitiously to Gen-Z. Of course it's demand-hype in disguise. I don't like it. It's creepy. I don't believe mQa should be allowed to use hashtag. #Earth Day.

You’re 100% right. 
 

This is a blatant attempt at relevance, using as many facts as the company always uses (close to zero). 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Interesting to see mQa playlists on Qobuz. All created by "fans" of mQa.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

 

Hey @DuckToller, who said comedy is dead here on AS :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, tmtomh said:

As part of this, I was struck by the petty way Chris chose to treat another audio site whose culture and purpose are objectivist and science-based: the way he mocked its name, and if memory serves the way this forum set up some kind of auto-barrier to correctly displaying the name of that site or perhaps to linking to content there (apologies - I can't recall the details and I don't look in here often, so I am happy to be corrected if I am misstating the details of this particular bit or if something has changed in that regard).

 

If you're referencing the issues with ASR, perhaps a rehash of the reasons for my actions will help. Objective members here started purposely trying to hurt my site by posting things such as "Hey a new and way better site exists at this URL ..." and a link to that site was included. Rather than limit my moderation to a game a wack-a-mole, I also made the links stop working. Yes, a few childish objectivists really did create topics and many posts with nearly identical language to what I typed above. 

 

With respect to the name of that site, I don't think putting science in one's name means the site is scientific at all. Take a look at the site's treatment of mQa. Based on a scientific approach, mQa is garbage. Users of a scientific site should be free to talk about the objective information related to mQa. However, that isn't the case.

 

What really makes that site dangerous is how they use science as a weapon. Posting incorrect information about a product (accidentally through incompetence, or otherwise (anyone remember someone taking measurements without the software volume control at 100%, then claiming the hardware product was terrible)), getting the entire community collectively laughing at a product as only those who enjoy schadenfreude can, then correcting it long after the damage has been done, isn't scientific. It's click bait for the echo chamber.

 

I completely understand that science is updated when new information comes along. That site is far from real science. Real science has real scientists look at something before it's published to the masses. However, that takes time and doesn't whip up the crowd as much as throwing measurements at the wall for all to find errors. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

And at the end of the day, it is the conflict between consumerist psychology and the questioning of the Audiophilia Status Quo that ultimately forced your hand to corral the people who might have made others question their consumerist motivations into their own segregated sub-forum.

No. 
 

 

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

We certainly don't want people questioning whether a DAC that costs as much as a car is really worth the money, right?

We, meaning you? 🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

I am reading the comments and at the same time came upon T-Bone Burnett's new medium announcement, New analog disc

Probably a topic for another thread. There are fewer details about this analog format than even mQa released at first. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You are always quick to delete any mention of the Audiophile Confidence Game.  And there is a strong case to be made that's it's an actual thing.

I haven't deleted anything.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I've certainly seen you delete references to it in the past.  You did this to one of my posts not too long ago.  Look at the delete history yourself.

 

 

The only time stuff is deleted is when threads go off the rails and I sweep 10-20 comments into the trash. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

After one day of the Munich show, I haven’t seen any mQa. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

After one day of the Munich show, I have seen MQA. 

I was told today that mQa reps are lurking around. Haven’t seen any exhibitors promoting it. 
 

Met with @GoldenOne today. What a nice guy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Contrary to your experience, I have seen exhibitors promoting MQA. What a curious juxtaposition of show experiences we have had so far. How unexpected. 

Which rooms promoted it?

 

Given this is a trade day, please put your industry affiliation in your signature line. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’d say mQa is on its last legs. Its presence at the show was nearly meaningless. The company had a meeting room to discuss licensing with manufacturers. I was told by a manufacturer they needed to check the mQa box for some reason. They hated the technology. I armed her/him with some data going into the discussion by telling her/him some manufacturers paid absolutely nothing for mQa while others paid around $5. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

On a side note, I watched the movie Argo on the plane home today. One thing caught my attention. 
 

One guy said, “How do you sell a lie?” 
The other guy said, “Get the press to do it.”  
 

That’s the mQa playbook. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Michael Fremer for the win!

 

”I had the worst possible Covid variant: OmicronMQA. You get Covid and it unfolds in your body measles and peyronie’s disease.”

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/axpona-2022—super-show-or-super-spreader

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

mQa marketing pitch to record companies is that it's "good enough" for consumers AND audiophiles, who don't deserve the unadulterated digital masters.

And, they all get to wet their beaks on the licensing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Is it April 1st?

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Co-opting environmental concerns like this is truly despicable by the company.

 

Let's look at the numbers here.

 

365days x 6hrs/d = 2,190 hours

24/192 2.0 stream (9,216kbps) compressed FLAC assuming conservative 30% compression = 1.125MB/s x 0.7 x 60 = 47.25MB/minute = 2,835MB/h

 

Therefore per year = 2,835MB/h x 2190h = 6,208,650MB = 6,209GB = 6.2TB/year streamed

 

Compare this to MQA - 24/48 2.0 stream (2,304kbps) which is 1/4 - and let's assume again 30% FLAC lossless compressed efficiency like above, so we're looking at 1.55TB/year streamed.

 

A conservative difference of less than 4.7TB streamed according to them = 5 return flights London/Berlin = 9 car journeys London/Manchester = 19 trees planted?

 

Can someone confirm that this is what the source "Carbon calculator" actually says is the environmental impact of sending 4.7TB across the Internet over 365 days?

 

Obviously even this calculation is over-estimating things...

1. Who listens to just 24/192 music!? ;-) Vast majority 16/44.1 out there anyways.

2. 30% FLAC compression too low for most good classical/jazz recordings, probably closer to 40-50% in real life. Also, MQA processing actually makes the efficiency of FLAC go down so we might still be looking at 30% compression with MQA, but 45% with the original 24/192.

 

And obviously switching to MQA has costs - environmental and otherwise:

1. The streaming service will need to pre-process all the native hi-res data to MQA, embed the cryptographic signature, and presumably there's implementation of the Ultimaco hardware infrastructure. All this needs energy and manufacturing. Who knows if each streaming service will need to duplicate this for their set of music files.

2. The consumers are encouraged to ditch otherwise perfectly good DACs for MQA-capable ones - increased trash? more manufacturing carbon footprint, etc.

3. The extra processing to decode MQA whether in extra cycles each time played back in software on your computer or implemented in the DAC hardware itself accumulates in unnecessary excess energy.

 

All this so we can listen to lossy "hi-res" audio? MQA truly is getting very desperate...

 

BTW: Where did that graphic come from? Is this on their website or did they just distribute this over social media; need to send the link to make that complaint?

Would also love to know where this impact comes from. Existing internet switches, routers, etc… are on 24/7 anyway. The difference in power usage between idle and a 24/192 track can’t be much.  Disk storage? Disk access?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think I understand the math now. 

 

One person streams 100% new 24/192 files to avoid caching, to a super computer running on a diesel backup generator, and plays the tracks on Pass Labs pure Class A mono amps, etc...

 

The 5 flights in the comparison are done via either carrier pigeon or the MIT Daedalus (self powered aircraft).

 

The 9 car journeys were done via solar powered car and all the materials to make the car and service the car were excluded.

 

The 19 trees? All trees are the same. Whether Sequoiadendron giganteum or the 1-6 cm Salix herbacea (dwarf willow).