MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

29 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

 

Perfect. 

 

This forum permits potentially defamatory (though safely nonspecific) posts, then the moderator pretends (by implication) that it's those on the other side of the debate who are being "post-factual", all while posing (i.e. at audio shows) as some sort of impartial observer.  

 

When did it become OK to post second-hand (or third-hand), nonspecific allegations that defame a whole category of professionals? At least (in contrast to a great many other MQA critics) mansr doesn't post such pathetic accusations anonymously. At least as far as we know.

 

Show some character. Provide evidence or delete your post. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

 

When there is proof shown, on this forum and others, that MQA is not what you or MQA claim and then turn around and say we are defaming you? I find it disheartening that Stereophile and others in the audio press still push this sham that is MQA. It is not enough that you repost the lies and nonsense MQA posted in their marketing ads (almost word for word too), but the Audio magazines seem to be doubling down on it. For what purpose?

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, james45974 said:

Nothing has ever been proven but the term historically related to the recording industry "Payola" frequently comes into my head!

 

Things have been Proven - 1. MQA is lossy, not lossless. 2. 96 KHz is the max resolution for MQA, anything over that is just oversampling. 3. MQA causes ringing, not preventing it 4. MQA adds noise to the file due to leaky filters. 5. MQA file size is not smaller that the same resolution FLAC file. I am sure there are more but these are facts that have been shown about MQA. 

 

The fact that hobbyists found this out, not the audiophile press is just staggering since they spend so much time testing amps, speakers, etc.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

You seem like a smart guy. So you can understand that this "saying" you've carted out, which I've never heard before, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, you will hit random dogs, and the ones you hit are likely to yelp. It's a little different with people, some of whom care about their reputations. That's why you shouldn't toss stones without cause, at dogs or at people. 

 

It's also worth considering that by posting scurrilous accusations on the Internet, you're effectively tossing stones from behind a tall fence--an act of cowardice. (I'll say it again though: To your credit, it least you don't cower behind a pseudonym.)

 

Without evidence, you cannot know whether the rumor you reported is true. If you don't know if its' true, you shouldn't repeat it--your mother taught you that much at least, right?

 

Provide evidence or delete your post. To do otherwise would be to further expose a serious lack of character. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Is it any worse than people trying to demean, degrade, or otherwise call into question Archimago for his work on MQA? How is it any different? It isn't.

[botrytis]

40 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Are you seriously suggesting that criticism shared by an anonymous poster is just as valid as that of someone who stands up and stakes their actual, personal reputation on what they do and say? It's not as if every statement Archie every made about MQA was amply supported by data. Even if they were his personal motives--which are unknown--cannot be evaluated. There is, after all, just one person there. 

 

And let the record show that no one who speaks for Stereophile--indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no one who writes for Stereophile--has ever defamed Archimago. (I see now that JA has already made this point.)

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Actually yes. You as a scientist should know that many peer reviewed magazines do their peer review process anonymously. The reason being that personal feelings are not brought up in the process. In fact, many times only the Title of the article and article is given to the reviewers.

 

So, Archimago, Mansr, et al. peer reviewed MQA and found it lacking. Rather than answering this query, one obfuscates from that query and blames everything else.  

[botrytis]

21 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

A manufacturer of D/A processors whose sales are suffering due to the lack of MQA decoding ability?

 

To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. 

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

That is fine. I was in a shop in a town near me (OK near me means 1.5 hours away) and the saleman basically said MQA, based on his chat to manufacturers he sells, said MQA is a nothing. They will put it in because some customers want it, most don't.

 

I find that argument disingenuous at best (highlighted). I think making the best DAC for the money is important. MQA is mostly streaming and since I don't stream it is a nothing to me. I would prefer having a DAC that can do FLAC and DSD files WAY MORE THAN MQA. 

 

 I get that may people like the sound of MQA. People also like haggis. There is no accounting for tastes.

[botrytis]

11 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Anyone have a Doctorate in Ethics?

 

In Biochemistry - Ethics is one topic that is covered. I do have a PhD in Fungal Biochemistry.

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I gave you a laughing thumbs up because we don't have a "press" in audiophiledom and the JA's are not "journalists", they are trade promoters.  

 

This is why your article/summary as a challenge to them is a non-starter, at least in how you meant it.  It is a challenge of course, but only as an obstacle in their jobs/careers as promoters of MQA and any and all other industry/trade concerns.

 

Their vehement denials of direct compensation and affirmations of "professionalism" have to be understood in the correct context - what the JA's really do.  Page after page of scolding them for not admitting the truth of MQA really is so much tilting at windmills because it assumes that they are "journalists" or "press" and thus are committed to the truth.

 

They are professionals.  Professional salesmen.

 

I think they shill it all. Cables, amps, MQA, etc. It is just part and parcel of the full assault on the audio buying public.

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I occasionally teach ethics as CPE for CPAs.  

 

The grad school, I went to, students had to take courses in ethics.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Remember, there’s no way judge complete formats. What tracks did you listen to?

 

also, remember that some MQA sounds far different from those who worked on the album say it should sound. If you like a flavor other than what the artist intended that’s totally OK. But, we shouldn’t mandate a flavor for everyone and that’s what MQA does. 

 

Excellent point. 

[botrytis]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

If that's not an offer of money, I don't know what it is. Well, I suppose it could be an offer to have someone "taken care of."

[botrytis]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We went to dinner in Munich a couple years ago with some other HiFi writers. It was brought up in the same conversation. 

 

Dinner didn’t work on me though. 

 

Similar thing. I was invited to a party at the house of a CEO that makes equipment for Bioremediation. The house was San Clemente, Nixon's western WH. As it turned out, I was invited since I was with some EPA scientists and they thought I was one too (I was a contractor for the EPA at the time). So, I got invited and went. None of the EPA people came along. Since the house was 2 hrs from San Diego where the meeting was taking place, buses were provided. When they found out I was just a contractor, they let me be to enjoy the party, but others were rushed into the house for a special meeting, I was not.

[botrytis]

I have an original copy of a video game (2000), for a company that is still around. The game is still played and still supported by the company. I bought a copy that was not stolen as I bought it at a retail shop, I still cannot use it and they won't support it since it has the license key setup that was smaller than the newer versions of the game. I can't install the game, play it, etc. i basically had to throw it away.

 

It can happen at any time. The company can just cut you off on their whim.

[botrytis]

35 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

That some have accepted is speculation until proven otherwise, but that some of the more critical coverage is on the site run by a guy who refused might say something... 😉

 

Ask the reviewers how much they actually reviewed and own now. That is a 'quid quo pro'.

[botrytis]

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With respect to accommodation pricing etc... I wrote a damn big check and one of the reasons I did it was to improve what I report to this community. The better my system, the better information I can provide. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an audiophile who has always wanted such a system for my own enjoyment as well, but some people would be surprised at how many hours I spent talking to people about which products are best for me to purchase to improve what I can provide this community. 

 

I think this community can easily see I have a track record here for all to read, am very transparent, and put them before anyone/anything else. Without the members of this community, there would be no advertisers and no site. This community is incredibly smart. If I tried to pull the stuff the old guard pulls, they’d call me out immediately. Plus, pulling that crap can’t make one feel personally satisfied inside. 

 

Enough about me. This community isn’t about me. I don’t want or need to be the center of attention. 

 

No need to apologize. 

 

The old guard do it because they feel entitled to do so.

[botrytis]

It is obvious as the nose on your face that the audiophile press will not bring up ANY of the issues that have been discovered about MQA. I don't know why other than the idea of killing the goose that laid the golden egg (in this case a golden pile of shite).

 

It is the subjectivist listening tests, in which we know nothing about what music, was there comparison or did were they just given the spiel and allowed to listen afterwards. This means the tests mean absolutely nothing since the influence of the press was told influences what they heard.

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Misdirection.

 

The bottom line is that the business model of MQA is to be the company controlling music distribution.

 

Fixed it for you. There is no 'body', like the USB consortium. There is only MQA.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

The subs page seems to be working: https://sph.pcdfusion.com/pcd/Order?iKey=I**A03

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

What about the other questions asked? Or are you hoping more subscribers from this board? I think you have lost more from here than you have gained by ignoring the issues with MQA. It will not go away by ignoring it.

[botrytis]

I was in a room with one of those writers, at last years AXPONA and he was pulling out some awful recordings, like Peter, Paul and Mary on 45's. They sound like ass. These are the golden ears writing reviews?

 

You would think they would pull out the best recordings. The gent in the room was almost kneeling like he was before a god, just was kind of weird.

[botrytis]

23 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm old enough to remember an acid-penned HP writing for an Absolute Sound that didn't take advertising. I really enjoyed the magazine then.  (Not that this was a sustainable business model, or that HP's reviews were without their own faults.)

 

Maybe it's my presbyopia that made me so very tired of trying to read between the lines of the next laudatory review, and the next and the next, to try to figure out even on a subjective level how various products might compare, until I finally gave up.  So it isn't even on my own behalf, but for audiophiles who deserve to be informed, that I'm frustrated.

 

Cooks Illustrated is a magazine that does not take advertisements. It is possible but one has to really plan what one reviews, etc. I mean I do not think Cook's Illustrated would review a 450K food processor. It wouldn't make no sense. They cater to their audience. 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

What you've pointed out is that (1) In cooking it's not as much about the equipment as in audio; (2) Much of the equipment is not of the same order of expense.

 

These factors make sustaining a no-advertising model more likely.

 

Consumer Reports takes no advertising, but it's much more of a general interest publication that has a subscription and donor base an audio magazine couldn't hope to duplicate.

 

People like to think that audio is 'special'. I try not to think of it that way as then one starts down the slippery slope that audio files are special and they don't follow the laws of science, etc. 

 

I would prefer magazines to be more detached so the reviews are more objective rather flouncy and flowery. But then, the writers wouldn't have so much to write about.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Real life and your preference are at odds here. There’s nothing special about audio, but it’s a tiny niche that doesn’t attract a broad audience that could fund a reader supported model. I’m sure the same can be said for luxury watches and many other non-special categories. 

 

I’d love to get rid of advertisements but that model only works for Consumer Reports and publications with large pockets / trust funds. 

 

I was talking about the writing style of the reviewers is all.

 

It isn't a preference really, just thinking out loud, it is morning after all and I don't have much in the way of science to deal with this morning, for a change.

[botrytis]

10 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

I've read through the responses to my post, which range from vicious to...Jud. In between are a lot of people that are  irritable, accusatory, and unfriendly. Jud's note, I felt, was principled and unwavering, but also collegial and open to the possibility that there are actually two sides to an issue that should be reconciliated as much as possible. I think it makes sense for me to engage with Jud to perhaps move a discussion forward. To actually have a discussion about MQA.

 

To reiterate my personal feeling about MQA, it is not a technology that represents a new day dawning, in my opinion. My sole experience with MQA was with an Aurender A10 that I had in-house for review two years ago for 6 or 7 weeks. I did as much comparison of MQA'd files to their HDtracks high-resolution equivalents as I could and felt that the MQA-processed material consistently sounded better. But (A) not enough better to get me to purchase a different reference DAC and (B) I don't stream much, anyway.

 

My portal into the MQA "debate" was not as an advocate but, rather, as a commentator on the increasingly toxic reaction to the codec in some corners of the internet. In mid-2017, I wrote an editorial called "The Politics of MQA" that laid out my concerns. (It's on the TAS website.) In that piece, I noted that "the theoretical objections to MQA do deserve a thorough consideration. But that discussion is difficult to have when the naysayers too often resort to ad hominem attacks on MQA principals and prominent audio journalists, including TAS editor-in-chief Robert Harley and his capable counterpart at Stereophile."

 

I still feel that way. I'd love to have the oft-repeated technical objections to MQA thoroughly addressed. But if this was a daunting proposition two-and-a-half years ago, it's 10 times more challenging now. In order to occur, a few principles need to be accepted, or it's not going to happen.

 

(1) Pro-MQA needs to be represented by someone with full fluency with the technology, preferably someone with the company.

(2) Anti-MQA needs to be represented by someone willing to identified by name and qualifying credentials. "Archimago has his reasons" for anonymity just doesn't cut it; that stance is the full equivalent of the stonewalling that the most zealous critics of MQA accuse the company and magazines of on a daily basis.

(3) The two representatives will respond to written questions devised and agreed to by Jud and myself. Responses will limit themselves to engineering, psychoacoustics, and musical aspects of the technology, steering clear of accusations regarding motives and integrity. 

(4) Sound quality will be on the table, as that's a primary concern for many, if not most, listeners, when it comes to MQA.

(5) Finally, it's understood that this isn't "MQA on trial" - the public flogging of a presumed miscreant. MQA, Ldt. is a legally incorporated entity doing business in a legal fashion, and they have plenty of supporters among recording professionals, record labels, journalists, and consumers. The goal is to shed light, not more heat, so that that last constituency can make their own judgements.

 

I'll sign off now and contact Jud vs PM to see if he's interested in pursuing this. There's no guarantee, of course, that TAS or Stereophile will take on publishing a 4 or 5 page feature on the controversy - again, I'm not speaking here for my magazine - but I can pitch the idea.

 

Several issues here and Chris brought up one. There is no MQA + or MQA- crowd, there is only PRO-MUSIC audience. THis audience wants the BEST possible product for the money, period. MQA is NOT IT. If you believe the smoke and mirror gobbledygook that MQA puts out in their marketing spiels then you will hear what they want you to hear. That is all it is. 

 

Your listening was sighted. That calls into question the validity and the non-bias of the listening. Do you believe their spiel or not? The reason I ask is that will tell you HOW you will hear things.

 

Points one and two were already tried. Chris asked BS himself to comment on what Archimago wrote and declined. That speaks volumes. If they didn't do it then, would they NOW all of a sudden do it?

 

MQA is on trial. It is a PATENTED system. Meaning NO ONE ELSE CAN USE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR A LIMITED TIME, unless it is licensed from MQA. Art (music) should not fall under such a system, since the Artists should be the one making the money, not middle men.

[botrytis]

23 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Yes, a magazine like Stereophile reviews a lot of products that its typical reader will not be able to afford. See my essay at

https://www.stereophile.com/content/conspicuous-consumption

in which I both offer an answer to the question "Why does a magazine read by regular middle-class people devote space to products that might as well be made from unobtainium?" and examine why the high-end audio industry is undergoing an upward price spiral.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with that. All one needs do is look at car magazines. They review and look at all price levels (very balanced, BTW). If you look at Stereophile, there are more high end reviews than there are more affordable products. Is it because, the writers want to do it? The manufactures? Or a combination? While it is great to see the reviews, it is better to see and hear in person, hence why AXPONA is nice. 

 

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

I'm not going to wade into why these publications acted the way they did when MQA first came out -- and remained on that train even though some of the best experts in digital (Robert Watts, John Siau, among others) were waving red flags left, right, and center. Instead, I want to bring up something I believe is critical that is potentially very destructive regarding MQA and most people are not talking about -- the implementation of the MQA filter as the sole playback filter for all files.

 

Many designers I've talked to (and I've talked to many) have said that ideally, MQA wants their filter used for all playback. If I'm not mistaken, a number of DAC makers did just that -- used the MQA filter for all PCM routed through. The problem is, while the MQA filter might be fine for MQA playback, from what I've learned, it's not the best filter for standard PCM -- it's a very "leaky" filter, among other issues. That said, IMO, those suppliers that implemented the MQA filter for all playback may have severely compromised their DACs doing so. I know I would never buy a DAC that has only the MQA filter.

 

Thankfully, though, not all companies did that. The Hegel H390 that I have here supports MQA, but it has dual paths through the filters for MQA and non-MQA material, as have others. But it's something I believe that potential buyers should look into. This, to me, is crucial -- but why didn't the magazines that championed MQA report on that? One can only guess...

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

 

 

Doug,

 

Thanks for this. That is why I haven't updated my iFi Nano I use at work. I do not want to deal with that issue. I also have some DSD files and would not be able to play them.