MQA is Vaporware

[John Dyson]

19 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

The plates used to press records had a life span.  If a record was popular and sold millions there would of course been multiple pressings.  There were Masters ( sub Masters? ) used to make new plates.  I don't know if the RIAA equalization was part of these sub Masters.  I do know that in the past I have run some of my CD's through a RIAA filter and they seemed to have sounded more natural.  This led me to believe that some CD's were pressed with RIAA equalization.

It is reasonable that some CDs might be produced with RIAA emphasis, but another thing -- some CDs were definitely produced with the CD-standard optional pre-emphasis.  If that along with DolbyA is used, the sound might be a lot better with RIAA.  I have a Nena disk (99 Red Balloons which is definitely a combo of both CD-standard pre-emphaiss and DolbyA encoding.  If you want, I can make the before and after snippets available to see if the RIAA decoding helps similarly..

 

Add-on:  I did try riaa on the Nena disk -- it sounds 'plausible', but way too much bass and the HF compression is even more obvious.  RIAA is probably a good work around alternative, and on this matter -- I am doing a demo of each possible solution...  Initial results -- RIAA sounds good and is reasonable on the tested material.

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, NoisyNarrowBandDevice said:

 

Provenance is a smart move. Reading the tea-leaves they might try to shift the MQA-narrative from audio-quality to artist-approved files/streams.

 

This could allow for a number of marketing and licensing options for music: artist approved streaming exclusives (price differentiation), authorized bootlegs, higher-quality masters etc.

 

Once you manage to establish "provenance" as a valid term in the music context you have an interesting marketing tool at hand. Of course the concept of provenance is highly questionable to anybody familiar with the realities of audio production. But fans do strive for authentic experiences and a connection to the artist. Artist strive for control - just look at Madame Swift and her recent moves on Twitter.

 

"Provenance" is where both desires meet.

 

Of course this reveals ever more clearly that MQA is about rights-management (yes with a big D) rather than audio-quality. But I don't expect for anybody outside of our bubble to notice.

Well said. Very scary. 

[KeenObserver]

"Provenance"  is the new "Lossless".

[Sonicularity]

So MQA is lossy provenance?

[KeenObserver]

Lossless is relatively easy to disprove.  "Provenance" is difficult to prove or disprove, or even define.  Which makes it a useful talking point for MQA.

[KeenObserver]

Just don't look behind the curtain!

[John Dyson]

35 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

It is reasonable that some CDs might be produced with RIAA emphasis, but another thing -- some CDs were definitely produced with the CD-standard optional pre-emphasis.  If that along with DolbyA is used, the sound might be a lot better with RIAA.  I have a Nena disk (99 Red Balloons which is definitely a combo of both CD-standard pre-emphaiss and DolbyA encoding.  If you want, I can make the before and after snippets available to see if the RIAA decoding helps similarly..

 

Add-on:  I did try riaa on the Nena disk -- it sounds 'plausible', but way too much bass and the HF compression is even more obvious.  RIAA is probably a good work around alternative, and on this matter -- I am doing a demo of each possible solution...  Initial results -- RIAA sounds good and is reasonable on the tested material.

I have produced some demo examples of an extreme case of poorly processed CD -- Nena, 99 Red Balloons an early CD.  It has both CD pre-emphais and also DolbyA encoding.  All are mp3, because they show the differences adequately with the mp3 compression.

 

Several versions of snippets  (names self-evident), raw copy, CD deemphaiss only, RIAA only, RIAA with 450Hz 1 pole bass cut, full decode and deemphasis:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/inzgf691x7sb2gd/AAAy_9tUiKFYkUHXu9PsPKona?dl=0

 

[KeenObserver]

MQA has sustained multi million Pound losses yearly since its inception.  It is running on borrowed money, which is running out.  In its last financial posting, the directors indicated that it is a "going business" because it expects to secure new financing by the end of November.

The backers and investors of MQA are not stupid people.  They would not continue to pour money into MQA unless they foresaw a VERY substantial cash flow in the future.  This VERY substantial cash flow would be paid for by the music consumer.  The music consumer would be paying a VERY substantial price for this so called "Provenance".

[The Computer Audiophile]

This whole provenance thing, the way MQA uses it, is akin to the SPARS code. It tells us a bunch of nothing under the guise of insider information that we should feel lucky to have. 

 

 

[Allan F]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This whole provenance thing, the way MQA uses it, is akin to the SPARS code. It tells us a bunch of nothing under the guise of insider information that we should feel lucky to have.

 

The SPARS code ultimately provided useful information of a sort. It proved conclusively that the quality of a recording was not related to whether it was recorded or mixed in analog or digital, but rather was a product of the care and skills of the producer and recording engineer.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

The SPARS code ultimately provided useful information of a sort. It proved conclusively that the quality of a recording was not related to whether it was recorded or mixed in analog or digital, but rather was a product of the care and skills of the producer and recording engineer.

Yes, exactly what it wasn't designed for :~)

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

It is amusing, well, not really...to watch MQA pivot monthly and move the goal posts as everyone of their marketing lies

are debunked. So now we move on to "provenance".that is hysterical. 

 

A laundry list:

 

"de-blurs" timing errors in the ADC-DEBUNKED

 

-Authenticated: DEBUNKED

 

-Losless: DEBUNKED

 

-Sounds "better": DEBUNKED

 

Saves bandwidth": DEBUNKED

 

And the biggest lie right in the catchy product title.."Master Quality"

 

[rn701]

Roon must be finally nearing a new release to fix all the outstanding  issues in their software. Otherwise, it seems like the COO would have R&D projects to tend to instead of spending time on their forums making up new justifications for MQA and running them up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes.

 

At any rate, his recent, uh, activism? in the forums is somewhat revealing about their priorities and their attitude towards customers, which is reminiscent of JimH.

[FredericV]

56 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

A laundry list:

 

"de-blurs" timing errors in the ADC-DEBUNKED

 

-Authenticated: DEBUNKED

 

-Losless: DEBUNKED

 

-Sounds "better": DEBUNKED

 

Saves bandwidth": DEBUNKED

 

And the biggest lie right in the catchy product title.."Master Quality"

 

just add "not" in front of every letter in MQA:

not the Master (it's like selling a lossy JPEG version of your photo and claiming it's as good as the RAW version - which is what MQA does - no real photographer would use JPEG as the master format as editing it further would expose the limitations of the lossy format - talking from experience here - I shoot in raw, jpeg is for beginners)

not the Quality (lossy version, actual non-MQA hi-res versions without the crypto DRM and 17/96 decimation, sound better to some)

not Authentic (we can strip 8 bits from MQA encoded files, and the blue lights still shines)

The whole authentication is therefore so limited it's useless.

Why didn't they include a full certification chain, like the certificates used with SSL? So you can see:

- which mastering engineer signed it
- which artist signed it
- which MQA engineer encoded it

.....

That's never going to happen.

[The Computer Audiophile]

More on the provenance "issue" - I'm working my contacts and doing research to prove or disprove my hypothesis that this whole provenance thing, as defined by MQA, is a problem that doesn't exist. 

 

So far "nobody" believes this is an issue. I say nobody becasue I'm sure there are a couple releases every year that are messed up. The following link from TuneCore explains that they require 16/44.1 WAV files. Sure this doesn't prohibit someone form converting an MP3 to WAV for upload, but we shouldn't get lost in the edge case weeds. 

 

https://www.tunecore.com/guides/how-to-get-your-audio-files-ready-for-distribution

[Archimago]

13 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

MQA has sustained multi million Pound losses yearly since its inception.  It is running on borrowed money, which is running out.  In its last financial posting, the directors indicated that it is a "going business" because it expects to secure new financing by the end of November.

The backers and investors of MQA are not stupid people.  They would not continue to pour money into MQA unless they foresaw a VERY substantial cash flow in the future.  This VERY substantial cash flow would be paid for by the music consumer.  The music consumer would be paying a VERY substantial price for this so called "Provenance".

 

Compared to some of the losses in other Dot-Com ventures, MQA is a relative lightweight. Just a few million here and there... 😱

 

I agree, they expect substantial cash flow... Is the consumer so silly to fork over cash for something with no actual value? I don't think so. They can hype up all they want, claim whatever, value MQA to investors as anything they wish. I just think it's too late in the game and all that's left is for the fat lady to sing.

 

Terribly conceived from start to bitter end, IMO.

 

At least the SPARS code was cool back in the day when music lovers kept an eye out for new DDD releases because it was new, there was genuine excitement, and digital actually could deliver on the promise of better resolution (even if ultimately not essential for good sound). Maybe the companies made a few bucks. Why would anyone care about the MQA designation now? There is no genuine excitement (if anything consistent opposition) and it cannot deliver on its factitious promises.

 

BTW: Anyone know if Universal Music Japan's release of MQA-CD's resulted in gangbuster sales??? 🤑 Did the Japanese even buy the stuff?

[james45974]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

More on the provenance "issue" - I'm working my contacts and doing research to prove or disprove my hypothesis that this whole provenance thing, as defined by MQA, is a problem that doesn't exist. 

 

So far "nobody" believes this is an issue. I say nobody becasue I'm sure there are a couple releases every year that are messed up. The following link from TuneCore explains that they require 16/44.1 WAV files. Sure this doesn't prohibit someone form converting an MP3 to WAV for upload, but we shouldn't get lost in the edge case weeds. 

 

https://www.tunecore.com/guides/how-to-get-your-audio-files-ready-for-distribution

My curious mind is wondering whether this new tack by MQA is a round about way of supporting Tidal in reaction to the latest moves by Amazon and Qobuz in the streaming business.  Face it, MQA is less than zero without Tidal, and Roon is pretty tangled up in there too.  Tidal may be in a big hurt and Roon has become kind of stale as of late.

[Shadders]

Hi,

I don't get this provenance thing either. It is not as if there are cover bands selling as the real band, nor that no one can get access to the real thing with other methods (Napster ?? or a bootleg site).

 

We all know that most people cannot tell the difference between MP3 and CD, or CD and high resolution, so what is the issue ?

 

Why would a streaming business need to prove provenance ?. They either have the real thing to stream or not. Why would a streaming business stream some other imprint of the song ? Are there bootleg streaming services ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I don't get this provenance thing either. It is not as if there are cover bands selling as the real band, nor that no one can get access to the real thing with other methods (Napster ?? or a bootleg site).

 

We all know that most people cannot tell the difference between MP3 and CD, or CD and high resolution, so what is the issue ?

 

Why would a streaming business need to prove provenance ?. They either have the real thing to stream or not. Why would a streaming business stream some other imprint of the song ? Are there bootleg streaming services ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Exactly. 

[Sonicularity]

Let there be a light!

 

Clearly some indication needs to be employed to let us know the proclaimed audio quality level or we could potentially face another debacle such as with the Meyer and Moran study where the Hi-Res versions, claimed by audiophiles to be noticeably superior, ended up not even being created from a Hi-Res source.  It certainly couldn't be that practically nobody can hear any difference.  

 

I am nearly inclined to believe this industry/hobby deserves all of the muck and lies that enthusiasts have to wade through to achieve high fidelity.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

6 hours ago, james45974 said:

My curious mind is wondering whether this new tack by MQA is a round about way of supporting Tidal in reaction to the latest moves by Amazon and Qobuz in the streaming business.  Face it, MQA is less than zero without Tidal, and Roon is pretty tangled up in there too.  Tidal may be in a big hurt and Roon has become kind of stale as of late.

Agree that MQA without Tidal is a defunct business

 

I am not sure what you mean by Roon being stale however. 

[KeenObserver]

The bottom line, ultimately, is the bottom line.  MQA Ltd is running on borrowed money that at some point is coming due. Their financial statement indicated that they were securing further investment, without which they would not be able to continue.  I am not familiar with the UK's posting standards and don't know if they would have to post it if they have indeed secured further financing.

The specter of MQA still hangs over the music consumer.

I agree with Archimago that multi million Pound losses are insignificant in some circumstances.  To a vast financial entity like Reinet multi million Pound losses are minor if they expect to reap VERY substantial gains in the future.  To do so they will have to reach very deep into the pockets of the music consumer.

The threat of the imposition of MQA control of the music industry is there until the fat lady sings.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This reminds me of a sob story BS told me once in an effort to get me onboard with MQA. I remember him saying, "... we've spent millions of pounds on this already  ..." 

 

 

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I don't get this provenance thing either. It is not as if there are cover bands selling as the real band, nor that no one can get access to the real thing with other methods (Napster ?? or a bootleg site).

 

We all know that most people cannot tell the difference between MP3 and CD, or CD and high resolution, so what is the issue ?

 

Why would a streaming business need to prove provenance ?. They either have the real thing to stream or not. Why would a streaming business stream some other imprint of the song ? Are there bootleg streaming services ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

 

It is just an attempt to use a term from the wine world in an irrelevant way that will nonetheless attract consumers.

 

"provenance" refers to origin, and shipping for wine - vibration and to some extent, heat can damage a wine

 

Since those who might be interested in MQA (audiophiles) overlap with wine drinkers, they are susceptible to such marketing confusion.

[rickca]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I remember him saying, "... we've spent millions of pounds on this already  ..." 

It was a moonshot with a rocket launcher from Hobby Lobby.