MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Fair(ish) point. I remain unconvinced that MQA's operations merit the level of vitriol levelled at it here on this thread.   

 

Music is very important to many members of this community. If mQa succeeds in replacing all music with a single deliverable, we will pay more for less and have worse quality than the original. That's an issue worth fighting for, for many music lovers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, skraggy said:

The record companies maybe would like to force MQA on the streaming sites, but what's their leverage?

They have all the leverage. The own Kind of Blue. The streaming services need Kind of Blue. Spotify can’t create Sort of Blue and keep customers. If labels say you get mQa or nothing, streaming services will have to accept that. 

 

15 minutes ago, skraggy said:

And most of the users never don't give a damn which format their streaming service uses.

Which is one reason to force it upon them. It’s an inferior product, but most people don’t care. This way the Crown Jewels stay in the vault, everyone in the business wets their beak via the mQa tax, and life is good for everyone except the consumers who care. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, JoshM said:

The article you posted refers to remastering, not to MQA encoding. Of course improvements can be made with better tape transfer and better AD conversion. That can, and does, happen when remastering to PCM. Using a lossy format like MQA can only lead to worse-sounding remasters, not better ones. 
 

It’s strange to mention Microsoft here, because it’s an example of just that. It lost one of the most famous U.S anti-trust cases in modern history. Moreover, both Apple and Microsoft have continued to face antitrust scrutiny from regulators in the U.S. and Europe.

In addition, nothing is making something better than the original. A remaster may make a new version closer to the original, but not better. There is no such thing as better than the best (original).

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

Where can one get these (without usually quite expensive subscription..)?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

Mr. Fremer just posted this.  His lack of any basic understanding is shocking.

 

"MQA CDs can unpack 192/24 so good luck to you! No one has “golden ears” nor have I ever claimed them. You are both disagreeable and ignorant."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/analog-corner-265-notes-road-hi-fi-shows-mqa

Michael was misinformed and elected to listen to the wrong person. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

That is far too kind. This is willful ignorance. All the data is out there.

I don’t disagree. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, firedog said:

Someone whose profession is writing about this stuff should understand (after seven years) how MQA works if he is going to write about it. 

Agreed. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, skraggy said:

The labels need Spotify just as much, what other avenues are available to them to monetize their music?

I don’t think so. Apple, Amazon, Qobuz, Deezer, etc… are all options. The only thing that could keep it out is if all the other services also said no. 
 

Plus, the labels own a big chunk of Spotify. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

We are talking about an audio company attempting to sell its tech. The vitriol directed at it by online commentators - including you, Chris - just seems way out of proportion. 

Can you show me an example of my vitriol? I certainly was upset after mQa reps treated me so unprofessionally at RMAF, but I don’t think I’ve used vitriol. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

And there we go. Aggressive posting over an audio format that you don't like. It's just madness. 

The madness is that you’ve responded to the below, by calling it madness rather than providing a single example. 

 

“You've asked for examples of various things in previous posts. Might we request you provide some examples of MQA having provided anything at all in the way of a better than "prehistoric" approach to tech/music/life?”

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Vitriol - in the Oxford dictionary - means 'bitter critics or malice'. The fact that you type 'mQa' is one example. There are undoubtedly more examples of your 'vitriol' in this forum. As for RMAF, that was four years ago - time to move on, maybe? I mean, it's only a music technology!

You’re reading into things is on another level, as is your trying to control the narrative of any questioning of mQa as vitriolic. 
 

Time to move on? Your the one that’s here keeping the thread alive right now. 
 

I brought up RMAF as an example of what angered me, but without a real example of my vitriol, I have to say you’re a troll who stretches the truth. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

I think that this forum is often massively unkind, unprofessional, unetc, etc, etc - so, I am addressing that. I do that same in other avenues of life, including other forumy stuff.

You sound fun in real life. Not. 
 

If you want to address what you consider the “massively unkind, unprofessional, unetc, etc, etc” forum, please open another thread. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Brahan Seer said:

You had me at 'another level'. Thanks. Just providing balance. :-)

Just because you call it balance doesn’t mean anything. Fox News calls itself fair and balanced. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

I was making general point. Which is what this forum needs more of.

Yes, just what all technical discussions need, more general points 😳

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

'replacing all music with a single deliverable' But that won't happen will it. It very much seems like your disguising something which has become very personal as a sort of worthy fight against The Man; a crusade of music lovers looking to save music from the digital devil incarnate. It just seems a bit silly.

Keep ignoring history and what has already happened. You’re using the same argument that many of the old guard press used in this very thread. When Tidal removed unaltered PCM for many albums, that logic quietly disappeared, in favor of other arguments telling us how irrational we are. 
 

Live in whatever reality you wish. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

So upsampling with a leaky MP filter is your cup of tea then? That's really great, good for you, some real cutting edge tech there.

 

Nice try, you mean you are once again going to that same tired old MQA playbook in attempting to change the narrative to some sort of unfair, uncivil internet accusation instead of providing some substance as to why you (or we) should consider MQA in a different light. Given all we know about the threat to the music distribution industry and consumer choice that MQA represents, and the published and repeatable measurements that illustrate the emperor certainly has no clothes, what are you really addressing at all here?

He seems willing to not hold mQa accountable for its actions, but wants to hold us to some imaginary standard where  asking him for any piece of data is vitriol. 
 

This will end well for him. 😳

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

You asked for an example.
vitriol (noun) = bitter criticism or malice

There is zero vitriol in that. Describing truth bluntly can’t be considered vitriol. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

My takes from my latest journey into the dark forest that is the MQAIV thread:

1. There is a lot of paranoia
2. Say you like the sound of something and someone quickly explains why you shouldn't
3. There is a lot of paranoia 
4. See above
   
    

When someone tells you and shows you who they are, believe them. In this case that someone is mQa. 
 

Why should people sit back until it’s too late?

 

The tech has been debunked. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

You genuinely believe that there is 'zero vitriol' in your below pasted statement? Come on, man, at least be honest - that's what you insist of MQA, right? 'describing the truth bluntly' - 🤣

It really blows my mind that audiophiles are onboard with MQA. It has zero to do with sound quality. If MQA was truly better, the content owners would be archiving content in MQA as fast as possible. The fact that none of them will archive a single album in MQA should be all that one needs to know. 
 
Think about it. MQA is all about control and money. The labels want control of the Crown Jewels and as for profit companies they want more money (nothing wrong with either). MQA enables both of these because the MQA files released are far less than the Crown Jewels and the labels are part owners of MQA. The labels can't lose with MQA. If the labels can't lose, how can any audiophile think he can win?
 
With Meridian losing tens of millions of dollars it was time to mine the intellectual property for money. MQA was just sitting there on the shelf. Clearly a solution for content owners, not consumers. That's what Bob invents. Solutions for content owners. How do I know this? Because people can't keep secrets. People on the inside leak information like a sieve, especially when they know lies are being told and something isn't right about the situation. 
 
All the companies that jumped onboard with MQA DACs, will now be struggling to find other ways to differentiate themselves because MQA homogenizes digital playback in a mediocre way. Forced leaky filters leaves one less point of differentiation for HiFi manufacturers. 
 

You can’t repeat untruths over and over to make them true. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Brahan Seer The truth isn’t vitriol. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

29 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

I see we have another avenue for MQA !!

 

https://blog.masterchannel.ai/mqa/

 

 

On the top tier pricing you can now have your music delivered in MQA

 

https://www.masterchannel.ai/pricing

 

Lossless  16/44.1 etc

Hi Res 24 / 96 etc

Ultimate MQA 

 

 

Hmmm, where have we seen this before? A single deliverable that replaces all other files. Nothing to see here folks, keep the blinders, and earplugs, on and hope it doesn't happen 😳

 

• MQA audio delivers the best sound across all experiences (music, podcast, video etc) and master files can be the source for all delivery services (not just TIDAL).

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, bambadoo said:

They have hired a concultant which has worked/and works for and with Tidal, MQA and Roon. He is also on the companys board. 

Of course it will be like that. 

The artists they use for advertising are all part owners. 

 

I've known Pål Bråtelund since he was with WiMP, before it was renamed Tidal. He is a good guy. We just disagree on mQa obviously. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

 

AI mastering then encode it in the MQA meatgrinder. What could possibly go wrong?

From white glove to white trash bag :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, bambadoo said:

So much MQA interest and things coming from my home country unfortunately. Started of course with Wimp (later Tidal), 2L and Morten Lindberg, this startup company that has just been mentioned, the commercial "white glove" treatment of the Radka Toneff record Fairytales etc. Just to mention a few. It is all connected through Pål Bråtelund. 

But please dont stop listen to our music. There are much to like and we are not all that bad :)

 

 

I visited WiMP headquarters, and Pål, in Oslo many years ago. You have a great country with great people. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Did  you see the angry baby in Oslo? Just wondering...

 

Ah, the Sinnataggen sculpture by Gustav Vigeland, in Vigelandsparken in Oslo. Didn't see it on that trip :~)