MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

On 9/2/2017 at 6:14 PM, Michael Lavorgna said:

This is not accurate. I have been saying, since I reviewed MQA last year, that the DAC is more important and it doesn't have to be "(expensive)". See my recent round-up of all-in-one devices for more on this subject.

 

You made that "(expensive)" bit up to fit your narrative, something you seem to have a habit of doing.

Michael you are right on time I will gladly listen to any argument you want to make that a Totaldac is not expensive. But when you said your Totaldac “made me reach much much deeper into my savings” I believed you. I read your roundup and I read more evidence MQA is not important to you. So I’m keeping you on the anti MQA side. It’s my scorecard and that’s where you fit.

 

This means whoever Steven Stone was referring to when he tossed the following insult at me will be contacting you shortly. “Do you write for the Wall Street Journal? Your comments indicate an anti-MQA bias, which is not a good position for a journalist...”  I wonder who decided that.

[Rt66indierock]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Look for another streaming service to announce MQA partnership September 4th. 

 

Deezer isn't a surprise. Access Industries owns over 50% of it and they own Warner Music Group. 

[Rt66indierock]

19 hours ago, mav52 said:

With all of this Vaporware talk since Jan, it appears this vapor has been compressed by MQA and the music labels into a liquid and it's now flowing but not stopping.

 

Actually MQA is still vaporware. It will take another 6,000 or so albums to turn the vapor into a liquid. It will stay a liquid for quite a while since the next hurdle is 1% of the albums available to get MQA out of commercially viable discussions.

[Rt66indierock]

1 minute ago, mav52 said:

From Audiostream,  Michaels position  https://www.audiostream.com/content/against-mqa-unfolded

 

My Official MQA Position
Who cares what my official MQA position is? OK, for those that do care, I don't have one. And I don't have one because a) it doesn't matter, and b) it doesn't matter. What I do have is experience. This matters.

And my experience tells me that MQA can make recorded music sound better (see my review of MQA). In some cases much, much better. I've never heard MQA processing make music sound worse.

You may agree, you may disagree. In either case, my experience does not change. You can question my motives, but then you'd just be being silly.

 

Since I'm the one keeping score Michael's position isn't one of the choices. 

[Rt66indierock]

20 minutes ago, mav52 said:

I look at it this way ; Vaporware;  software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed. Its passed it Vaporware stage.  Its out in the public and being utilized. 

 

We discussed this earlier in the thread. Chris was claiming I had a moving target of albums so I set the vaporware number at 10,000 instead of a percentage. You forget I still can't buy MQA albums in the formats listed in the original post. And as I said earlier once we get past vaporware we discuss commercially viable.

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, FredericV said:

How is 23 bits of dynamic range possible, if 17 bits of the 24 bits distribution file are already borrowed to reconstruct the partial ultrasonics? Remember that MQA can't describe any ultrasonic frequencies above 44.1 or 48K (depending if the original resolution is a multiple of 44.1 or 48K), as the second unfold is minimum phase upsampling + weird filters. The first unfold adds one octave compared to the undecoded version. The second unfold does not recover any new entropy, and does not recover any extra additional octaves.

Why can MQA get away with only 13 bits of resolution (in case of MQA CD) or 17 bits (in case of 24 bit distribution files)?

This is very easy to explain:

No music content has 24 bits of actual resolution. I recently had the chance to record K's Choice in Koor (= in choir), an acoustic concert with a 240 voices choir in deSingel in Antwerp.
 

 

This concert hall has an RT60 of 2,03 seconds, which is ideal:

https://desingel.be/nl/info/blauwe-zaal

 

Let's look at RT60. RT60 basically debunks the need for 24 bit:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/revtim.html

 

 

So if an orchestra has about 60dB of dynamic range, we need 10 bits of resolution. So if MQA claims "3–6 bits below the content noise in the audio band", this can actually be true,  but MQA also debunks the need for 24 bit bit depth.

MQA CD can perfectly get away with 10 bits of musical content + and 3 extra bits below the content noise in the audio band, to land at only 13 bits of actual audio+noise, and 3 secret encrypted DRM bits, do recover some lossy ultrasonics and add one extra lossy octave compared to redbook quality.

With 24 bit distribution files, they most likely have 16 bits for the baseband audio, and 8 encrypted lossy DRM'ed bits to add an extra octave. So again, with 24 bit distribution files and 10 bits of real audio data like the dynamic range of a typical hall like deSingel in Antwerp, the claim of  "6 bits below the content noise in the audio band " can be true.

MQA basically debunks the need for 24 audio bit depth

 

Or more simply most peoples point of pain is 120 db. A very quite time in my office with the HVAC off is around 30 db. The difference is 90 db. The dynamic range of a CD is 96 db. 24 bits gives a recording engineer and mastering engineer margin for error that 16 bits doesn't. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

Anyone can keep score ?

 

True but you have think keeping score is important. I recognized what was going on with MQA in June of 2016 as I've stated several times and started keeping score. You were talking about vinyl.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, Melvin said:

 

As mentioned back in May .. juggernaut. I rest my case.  

Michael nicely highlights the latest here: https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-ifa-2017-updates

 

 

 

Melvin you are resting your case in the MQA is Vaporware thread. You are arguing that a format with less than 10,000 albums is a juggernaut. My last count is still under 3,500 albums so it is not even close to getting of the vaporware list. Now if the majors get busy and convert enough albums to get MQA off my vaporware list where are we at? Now we have a discussion about whether MQA is commercially viable. For MQA to be commercially viable there would have to be at least 1% of all albums available in MQA. A number far larger than all the all of the hi-res albums Marc Fine of the Digital Entertainment Group says are currently available. 1% isn’t even a six figure number of albums. There are no formats considered juggernauts with numbers this small. Now for MQA to reach critical mass the number of albums would have to have two commas in it. Even a million albums would still be less than a quarter of the music available but if was the right million it would be a viable tier for a streaming company.

 

All you have to do is look at how hard it is to sell CD quality streaming to see the market isn’t there. For a format to succeed people have to do one of two things. Buy music in the format or stream music in the format. There are no other ways for a format to be successful. MQA has not succeeded in either so it’s not successful. You rested your case prematurely.

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

Actually, at my location, I still cannot purchase MQA music.

 

Pretty much the same boat I saw an MQA version of American Beauty yesterday on Onkyo Music but do I need a third version of it?

[Rt66indierock]

13 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

The end is nigh :

http://musically.com/2017/09/04/major-labels-hi-res-audio/

Regards,

Shadders.

 

You missed the word hope. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 minute ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

OK - you have stumped me - why is hope missing ?

Regards,

Shadders.

 

They hope it will be more than a niche. There are many practical issues causing problems with all this marketing hype.

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Ok - thanks - i get it now.

If there is one file type to serve all streaming requirements, then it may be  fait accompli.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Highly unlikely there aren't enough hi-res files out there. Look for some evidence any of the people who have streaming market share caring about even CD quality. And of course there is the little problem of geographical restrictions requiring more than one file to cover the globe. 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, wushuliu said:

 

And look how well this has worked in the past. You've already got major awareness regarding internet rights and privacy due to FCC. People are in a fighting mood. It's been three years of this MQA talk already. If audiophiles and associated companies are already divided, what chance does MQA have?

 

In fact I predict a backlash and ascendancy of the 320mp3 crowd in opposition to hi res if it's made equivalent to MQA. We've done this rodeo already.

 

I agree with the first paragraph.

 

As for your prediction John Atkinson editor of Stereophile made a recording of the Portland State Chamber Choir just recently released.

I've talked with a few fellow Portland State alums who are just classical music fans. They are very happy with the MP3 and iTunes versions. The mainstream music consumer in the United States has voted with their dollars for years and ignored hi-res audio.

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, Nikhil said:

 

 

On some of the other forums I'm on people are going for it hook line and sinker ...

 

 

But they have low numbers of viewers and posters. And it is pretty easy to fool most people. 

[Rt66indierock]

29 minutes ago, FredericV said:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12847173-post86.html

RMAF has cancelled the MQA Panel.

 

They must be very afraid of Brian Lucey and those with real questions

 

Or they are all just assuming everything will blow over. See John Darko's birthday post today with Bob Stuart handing him money.

[Rt66indierock]

15 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Very interesting. As far as the idea that MQA is about the quote shiny new thing unquote, I think that is true of any new thing and quite beside the point.  Of course any new product is going to position itself as something new and worthwhile having, that is just a truism.

 

Robert Harley of absolute sound was exactly right two years ago when he admitted that MQA begins and ends with DRM and that is why it exists.

 

Where did Robert Harley say this exactly? The iOS 11 release is causing some interesting rumors about whether MQA is even necessary for streaming.

[Rt66indierock]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Well, but it doesn’t.  It prevents unpaid copying of the originals, but then so does the decimation to lower resolutions that is ubiquitous today.  It doesn’t at all prevent copying of MQA files (or, with a little more trouble, streams).

 

 It seems to me the attraction of MQA must be the ability to sell something as new and hi res and better sounding.

 

As I’ve speculated before, MQA without new hardware could be sold as something better, and MQA with new hardware could be sold as a luxury tier for fewer people.

 

I think you are on to something. Part of the appeal of MQA may be that it is a new format and the industry is looking for a new format to sell. The beauty of MQA is once a file is converted to MQA it is high resolution. When you consider the vast majority of current masters are 16/44.1 converting them to MQA instantly makes them hi-res.

 

To an earlier point of yours I’ve been saying since the beginning of this thread that high resolution and MQA as subset don’t work for artists. The revenue from hi-res doesn’t justify the time or expense to make a hi-res recording. Similarly for studios high resolution doesn’t have a revenue stream worth pursuing.

[Rt66indierock]

On 9/16/2017 at 9:26 PM, tobes said:

I presume you mean that they will be purported to be hi-res - in an attempt to hoodwink people into thinking they've bought something better?

 

You presume correctly. I tend to believe that unless you start out to make a high resolution recording you don't have one. Anything else is putting a lower resolution file in a high resolution container and calling it hi - res.

[Rt66indierock]

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I really wish you could talk to them about MQA. I've had no less than 3 discussions with Berkeley about MQA, in the last couple months. Very different perspective from what others are saying on both sides of the debate. Berkeley is in a unique position, having spent millions of dollars on research for the previous company Pacific Microsonics. 

 

 

 

Why not enlighten us on Berkeley's perspective?

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I've told every manufacturer and MQA that I'm not their mouthpiece. If they want people to know something, they can say it. 

 

They tell you anything they didn't tell Brian Lucey and me? What they told us is in GearSlutz.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, kana813 said:

I guess someone forgot to tell these folks that MQA is already dead.

 

From www.audiostream.com:

HDtracks, the grandfather of hi-res download sites, will be launching their own streaming service, HDmusicStream, which will feature all MQA-encoded music all the time, later this year. HDtracks have chosen 7digital to provide app development, host the music catalogue on its platform, and deliver tracks to consumers. Here's Pete Downton, Deputy CEO of 7digital (as reported in StockMarketWire.com):

"We are excited today to be able to confirm our relationship with HDtracks. The Grammy Award-winning label Chesky Records—from HDtracks founders David and Norman Chesky—has, for many years, set the highest standards in high resolution audio. Their pursuit of excellence will soon be available to audiophile music fans in a streaming service for the first time".

 

It is officially late based on what Bob Stuart told me personally at the Los Angles Audio Show.

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, wdw said:

funny!  it appears the MQA folks are now just ignoring you/us as they are now at third base.  The strategy is so suspect...no reviews nor direct A/B comparisons for the unwashed but extravagant treatment for the audio glitterati.  I have respect for the opinions of JA, of Stereophile, and these are overwhelmingly positive...perhaps when we have a chance to hear this stuff in a controlled environment we may share his outlook but MQA has thwarted my attempts.

 

How does MQA Ltd get to third base without revenue? Even LG selling a million phones and other hardware manufactures selling 100,000 DACs this year isn't enough. 

[Rt66indierock]

17 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

Aren't they now embedded with two or three major labels, Tidal, HDTracks and a few others?

 

Again where is the revenue stream going to MQA Ltd? At some point you have to stop burning cash. In 2016 MQA Ltd's cash burn rate was about $360,000 a month. That can't go on forever.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, wdw said:

 

Dunno...so odd how this is playing out...one one hand, MQA is just wonderful, the other B. Stuart is close to a sociopath.

 

In my case MQA doesn't work for artists, studios and there isn't enough music to matter. I've met Bob Stuart and if he wanted to he could send me the six albums from an earlier post that are available in Europe but not in the United States. He has my contact information and his people monitor this thread. 

[Rt66indierock]

12 hours ago, rickca said:

The MQA thought police reputation management folks?

 

Hardly anything ominous as thought police or reputation management. Best I can tell the person is a shareholder – employee concerned about the future of MQA Ltd who shares a musical interest with me.