MQA is Vaporware

[asdf1000]

17 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

So the narrative that he "blows smoke" or tells tall tales is really Fake News. Thinly veiled, passive aggressive attacks on his credibility?

 

Noted but there were specific examples that we discussed, in this thread. I questioned him about specific examples and just got vagueness in return from him. He writes in riddles.

 

I remember one discussion was about PS Audio supporting MQA (DirectStream DAC's ethernet card) and his comments about that. I think you were part of that discussion. And at the time I said something about him blowing smoke, about his comments.

 

It's ok, we moved on from it after that. Life moved on. But I agree with Chris.

 

That's a specific example (not vague). The problem is even though it's here in this thread, I can't be bothered finding it just yet. Maybe later.

 

[ShawnC]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

That is a non answer. I simply asked for examples where you have definitive proof he "makes stuff up"....

 

Or, are YOU making stuff up?

And this is exactly what Chris is saying.  Where's the definitive proof? It goes both ways.  I too would like to see MQA disappear.

[firedog]

I no longer have any idea what the discussion is about here. The last couple of pages should just be deleted.

Can we actually talk about MQA, or not post anything?

[Skirmash]

As a long time lurker and I caution, one that is massively less articulate than the many established posters in this thread, I thought I would express an opinion, in part, to get back to talking about the subject matter rather than the posters themselves.

 

My thoughts as they pertain to MQA have done a complete '180'.

 

When I first heard of (note not listened to) MQA, I thought the idea was a clever one that seemed to offer a number of benefits. Having what seems like a single file format that could be played back at different resolutions (depending upon equipment) where the additional information was parked under the real-world achievable noise floor seemed clever. The fact that it is lossy would not be a concern to me.

 

What is a concern and what turned me around was the debunking of MQAs technical claims. Let's be clear about this. It is in MQA's financial interests to refute that debunking on its technical merits. The fact they they have not done so far should tell you everything you need to know. They cannot do so in a way that stands up to scrutiny. Thus they attack the messengers.

 

Furthermore, I have no idea of how some music journalists, who have garnered stellar reputations for their technical engineering assessments of hi-fidelity products, have suddenly turned a blind eye to the technical achievements purported by MQA because, it seems, some combo of their egos or livelihood is directly or indirectly threatened.

 

I have no issue about people personally liking the way MQA sounds. Personal choices are just that. I describe music as my religion. No matter how angry, sad or lonely I get, an hour of music always has me grounded and feeling at one with the world again. If it takes MQA to get you there, I am happy for you. However, given MQA's stated desire to be the de-facto distribution method, a personal choice for MQA comes with the substantial risk of limiting the choice for others.

 

Why would anyone think this is for the greater good when, in fidelity terms, what MQA offers can be had in a non-propriety format that does not line the pockets of others and leaves open many more personal choices concerning playback mechanisms that include the judicious use of DSP?

 

EDIT: I am hoping MQA is still alive only because of the sunken cost fallacy, and not because people believe it is a good choice for either the music or hi-fi industries!

 

Stay healthy everyone!

 

Ash

[Rt66indierock]

18 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Sure it's not required and doesn't 'need to be submitted'. Agreed.

 

But someone making claims for years must realise they look a bit silly... 

 

I never said he needs to put up or shut up... just that it looks silly... like perhaps he makes up a lot of stuff?

 

Again, this is coming from someone (myself) that would prefer MQA go away...

 

Please refresh my memory on what I've made up. Most of the posts I've are about files converted and financial information.  

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Please refresh my memory on what I've made up. Most of the posts I've are about files converted and financial information.  

It seems you are a legit victim of Fake News. 

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Please refresh my memory on what I've made up. Most of the posts I've are about files converted and financial information.  

 

Check your PM's and search this very thread for the PS Audio discussion...  where I said you write in riddles.

 

We both moved on from it then. So why bring up the exact same discussion that is already here in this thread? 

 

[UkPhil]

Are these “boutique” audiophile items still adding MQA because of consumer pressure, the reviewer sort of brushed passed the format in this review https://www.monoandstereo.com/2019/03/brinkmann-audio-nyquist-mk-ii-streaming.html?m=1

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

7 hours ago, UkPhil said:

Are these “boutique” audiophile items still adding MQA because of consumer pressure, the reviewer sort of brushed passed the format in this review https://www.monoandstereo.com/2019/03/brinkmann-audio-nyquist-mk-ii-streaming.html?m=1

Reasonable review considering what he had to work with. This DAC measured horribly on John Atkinson's test bench. 

 

The price is a joke. Clearly NO customer asked for MQA because the "Mach 1" version of this brick came to market with MQA, and this company had no other digital products.

 

Then there is this..the author claims the manual says that DSD is limited to single rate via Ethernet..for 20 grand???

And no, it has nothing to do with the Ethernet bandwidth. Expensive paper weight. 

 

Contrast this with the subjective goop found in the Streophile review of the first version. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Clearly NO customer asked for MQA because the "Mach 1" version of this brick came to market with MQA, and this company had no other digital products.

Not sure which logic class teaches that method of reasoning. 
 

Clearly when bringing a product to market, manufacturers consult their dealers and distributors for feedback. Intern, these guys provide feedback based on market demand, not based on a technological assessment of available options. 

[KeenObserver]

If MQA Ltd becomes defunct, will the companies that signed on to MQA still have to adhere to their non-disclosure agreements?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not sure which logic class teaches that method of reasoning. 
 

Clearly when bringing a product to market, manufacturers consult their dealers and distributors for feedback. Intern, these guys provide feedback based on market demand, not based on a technological assessment of available options. 

In fact you are wrong. This interview details the fact he designer decided to include MQA of his own choice.

 

In fact, this is a very illuminating read for all on this thread. It shows how clueless many so called authorities and luminaries are. All credit to the interviewer. We get a behind the curtain look...

 

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-870&lang=en

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

17 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

If MQA Ltd becomes defunct, will the companies that signed on to MQA still have to adhere to their non-disclosure agreements?

I doubt it. Even if they do violate the NDA when MQA shits the bed, who will enforce it? With what money?

[KeenObserver]

12 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I doubt it. Even if they do violate the NDA when MQA shits the bed, who will enforce it? With what money?

 

Can the rights be sold off?  There are patent rights that are used for frivolous lawsuits.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Can the rights be sold off?  There are patent rights that are used for frivolous lawsuits.

That would be a question for an intellectual property lawyer. But of what value would the rights to an NDA pertaining to a defunct company and dead technology be? 

[KeenObserver]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

That would be a question for an intellectual property lawyer. But of what value would the rights to an NDA pertaining to a defunct company and dead technology be? 

 

Again, lawyers have used questionable patent rights to file frivolous lawsuits.  Throw crap against the wall and see what sticks. On many occasions small settlements are made to make the nuisance go away.

[KeenObserver]

My concern is all the MQA enabled decoders out there that cripple non MQA music.  We know from reverse engineering and disclosures from the manufacturers that some MQA decoders need to be reset in order to play non MQA music.  We don't know about others because of the NDA's.  I would be concerned if I owned a MQA enabled decoder and MQA was no longer available.  Is the decoder crippling my music?

[asdf1000]

39 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

In fact you are wrong. This interview details the fact he designer decided to include MQA of his own choice.

 

In fact, this is a very illuminating read for all on this thread. It shows how clueless many so called authorities and luminaries are. All credit to the interviewer. We get a behind the curtain look...

 

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-870&lang=en

 

The only part I found interesting was this:

 

"I asked MQA guys why they sell license for using the format and they told me they had to because they were buying licenses from record labels they were working with."

 

Does this mean MQA Ltd doesn't receive any income from the labels?

 

Their only income is from hardware and software (1st unfold) licenses? 

 

 

[KeenObserver]

That is why I bought the Benchmark DAC3.  I know it is not infected with MQA.  I know it is not crippling my music.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, asdf1000 said:

 

The only part I found interesting was this:

 

"I asked MQA guys why they sell license for using the format and they told me they had to because they were buying licenses from record labels they were working with."

 

Does this mean MQA Ltd doesn't receive any income from the labels?

 

Their only income is from hardware and software (1st unfold) licenses? 

 

 

Good catch. It is easy to see why the labels got involved with MQA. There was NO COST to them, in fact, they were paid. We also know they were given shares in MQA for "services rendered". 

[The Computer Audiophile]

45 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

In fact you are wrong. This interview details the fact he designer decided to include MQA of his own choice.

 

In fact, this is a very illuminating read for all on this thread. It shows how clueless many so called authorities and luminaries are. All credit to the interviewer. We get a behind the curtain look...

 

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-870&lang=en

Again, I attended far different logic classes than you did in college. Your comments make zero sense to me. 

 

If you believe that you read what you said and that this means zero feedback from dealers, distributors and customers was involved, then I can no longer be involved in a discussion with you. We speak different languages. 

 

I dislike MQA as much as the next guy but I'd put you well past the religious right wing on the continuum, if there was one for MQA. Perhaps that's a compliment to you, given your stance.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

That is why I bought the Benchmark DAC3.  I know it is not infected with MQA.  I know it is not crippling my music.

The EMM DACs are "infected" as you say, but I know they are't crippling my music either. 

[KeenObserver]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The EMM DACs are "infected" as you say, but I know they are't crippling my music either. 

 

That is comforting.

 

Hopefully everyone that owns  MQA enabled equipment can feel as comfortable.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Again, I attended far different logic classes than you did in college. Your comments make zero sense to me. 

 

If you believe that you read what you said and that this means zero feedback from dealers, distributors and customers was involved, then I can no longer be involved in a discussion with you. We speak different languages. 

 

I dislike MQA as much as the next guy but I'd put you well past the religious right wing on the continuum, if there was one for MQA. Perhaps that's a compliment to you, given your stance.

When MQA gets flushed down the toilet, you can buy me a Pastrami sandwich and Knish in appreciation. 😃

[Currawong]

On 4/29/2020 at 1:21 AM, MikeyFresh said:

Regardless, I have never been a fan of any equipment manufacturer's inclusion of any technology or feature, merely to tick a box in their marketing, or worse yet to try to take advantage of what they see as a media blitz surrounding that tech or feature.

Don't look into portable music players then. They all MUST have balanced outputs or the enthusiasts rant and rally that they are no good, even though you don't at all need balanced outputs for headphones or IEMs.  You might well put the blame for MQA including in products on the head of enthusiasts who badgered manufacturers to include it. Like the internet, even if you are a tiny minority, if you make enough noise you can fool people into thinking that you represent the opinion of a significant percentage of people.

 

On 4/30/2020 at 9:55 AM, Rt66indierock said:

 

I wasn't the one doing the fighting. You banned him Brian Lucey did the heavy lifting in the studios. I just provided data that Bob Stuart wasn't who everyone thought he was.

 

I don't do pictures with me and other people no point. I've interacted with more than twenty major league baseball players this spring at the Biltmore's short game practice area. What's the point of getting a picture? When I was kid in Minnesota we lived a few houses away from Bob Allison and Fran Tarkenton went to our church. I tried to qualify for the PGA Tour and met lots of famous people. And I worked briefly at Infosphere and met a lot of famous computer guys. And I'm not getting you a picture of me the next famous person I meet for the obvious reason client confidentiality.

 

When you were vague to me about the connection of MQA and HDTracks and their legal issues, it didn't leave me any confidence that you know anything beyond what you can read on the internet. Every recent reply you've had regarding evidence for the things you claim (excepting the links to public MQA financials and the like) has been a clear attempt to avoid having to provide anything concrete about what you say, in one way or another. I think you have a strong need to appear important. If meeting sports and movie stars makes you feel important, enjoy! But meeting famous people isn't the same as knowing what you are talking about, and since 2017 when you started this thread, it seems that your knowledge has dried up.

 

I've said it before, but this kind of thing has been one of the major failings of the discussion of MQA. The actual useful information about the issues with MQA has been buried in amongst what amounts to shit-talking people in the audio press and others in the industry.  This thread, despite it starting out well, seems to have run its course. At least though it made people in the different parts of the industry take notice and, for the most part, stop trying to hype an almost useless technology.