MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

1 minute ago, Tintinabulum said:

For balance, innocent readers may want to see the other side of the argument, which is the opposite of what you said above. All innocent readers get is the tired views of anti-MQA campaigners who have been at it for years/become jaded/done no good/are in it to the death/make stuff up. By all means take Warners down. 

 

You keep coming back to this thread.  Do you have a vested interest?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Tintinabulum said:

For balance, innocent readers may want to see the other side of the argument, which is the opposite of what you said above.

 

Please show us one side of this argument that's based on facts. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Tintinabulum said:

All innocent readers get is the tired views of anti-MQA campaigners who have been at it for years/become jaded/done no good/are in it to the death/make stuff up.

 

The length of time one dislikes a company or product has no bearing on the validity of one's argument or the efficacy of the company/product.

 

You've been here for seemingly ever, offering nothing of value other than snarky comments. I would never attack you as a person as I'm sure we'd have some tea and enjoy the conversation, but your comments are nothing but trolling, sophomoric, and troublemaking. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, sp25 said:

I expect this has been done already, but for any boycott Tidal, boycott MQA campaign to gather ground there needs to be a relatively non-technical summary of this that I and other enthusiasts who haven't time or patience to read and absorb the finer details can understand, and also an easily accessible location point eg on this site. Both sides of the debate can too easily blind with science/BS!. Education, Education, Education. While we are at it can we have a boycott compression campaign too LOL

Here are some pieces of information.

 

 

[KeenObserver]

12 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

For balance, innocent readers may want to see the other side of the argument, which is the opposite of what you said above. All innocent readers get is the tired views of anti-MQA campaigners who have been at it for years/become jaded/done no good/are in it to the death/make stuff up. By all means take Warners down. 

 That seems like a moderately patronizing attitude.

 

And since no one is paying attention, why do you keep responding.

 

Again, do you have a vested interest?

[sp25]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here are some pieces of information.

 

 

Thanks I'll try and find time for a closer look, I was thinking of something perhaps less technical, that enthusiasts, dealers, suppliers etc etc could refer too as part of any campaign to keep our music free of corruption. I appreciate a technical proof is valuable but might get more popular support keeping it simple. Seems like both sides have endless technical "proof"

[botrytis]

19 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

For balance, innocent readers may want to see the other side of the argument, which is the opposite of what you said above. All innocent readers get is the tired views of anti-MQA campaigners who have been at it for years/become jaded/done no good/are in it to the death/make stuff up. By all means take Warners down. 

 

Well first and foremost - MQA is lying in their Marketing - 1. It is a lossy compression. 2. It is not 24 bit files as the lossy-nature of their system removes data that you CAN'T GET BACK. 3. There is not 3rd unfold - it has been proven to be just an upsampling ploy. 4. There are no specially designed MQA filters to deal with specific ADC, unless you are talking about the ones that MQA massaged themselves to prove how good there system is - problem being it was a crapshoot and no overarching improvement other than loudness. 5. There is a DRM system built into MQA, which negates the CONSUMER'S DIGITAL RIGHTS. 6. It is a closed system that costs more and offers nothing.

 

This is not made up stuff. These have been proven and independently verified facts.

 

If you like MQA. Fine, but it is not was they purport it to be and never will. You can't put lipstick on a pig to make Miss America.

[KeenObserver]

5 minutes ago, sp25 said:

Thanks I'll try and find time for a closer look, I was thinking of something perhaps less technical, that enthusiasts, dealers, suppliers etc etc could refer too as part of any campaign to keep our music free of corruption. I appreciate a technical proof is valuable but might get more popular support keeping it simple. Seems like both sides have endless technical "proof"

 

Actually, one side has made  grandiose claims without proof and the other side has made very detailed scientific rebuttals of these claims.

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, sp25 said:

Thanks I'll try and find time for a closer look, I was thinking of something perhaps less technical, that enthusiasts, dealers, suppliers etc etc could refer too as part of any campaign to keep our music free of corruption. I appreciate a technical proof is valuable but might get more popular support keeping it simple. Seems like both sides have endless technical "proof"

 

The other side has NO PROOF. The MQA-shills (sorry I show my disgust at them) just have marketing speak. They offer no proof. They never do any double blind listening tests. The tests (e.g. Archimago's test) that have been done with MQA files is a crap shoot and why would I pay more for a file that sounds worse? I mean and need a new DAC and software for decoding?

 

Tell me how that seems like a good idea?

[sp25]

11 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

The other side has NO PROOF. The MQA-shills (sorry I show my disgust at them) just have marketing speak. They offer no proof. They never do any double blind listening tests. The tests (e.g. Archimago's test) that have been done with MQA files is a crap shoot and why would I pay more for a file that sounds worse? I mean and need a new DAC and software for decoding?

 

Tell me how that seems like a good idea?

The music labels have had a monopoly on the distribution of music since 78 records! With file sharing and streaming thats gone as is their ability to charge/overcharge (eg CDs) sell and sell again the same product. Shame Tidal has gone down that road but as has been said it seem to be a front for the labels.

[KeenObserver]

If all the carefully crafted scientific analysis of MQA does not do it, I'll give you a brief subjective analysis: IT SUCKS!

 

MQA is a pox on the music consumer.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

MQA is a pox on the music consumer.

Or put another way, a tax with no benefit. People claim to have no added cost right now. That's not totally true, but wait until we move further down the path of MQA only. 

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, sp25 said:

The music labels have had a monopoly on the distribution of music since 78 records! With file sharing and streaming thats gone as is their ability to charge/overcharge (eg CDs) sell and sell again the same product. Shame Tidal has gone down that road but as has been said it seem to be a front for the labels.

 

It seems what has been reported here is the labels are sending MQA files as regular high res FLAC to the streaming services. So people are paying extra to stream rhigh res FLAC files and getting shit MQA instead. Isn't that a bait an switch?

[botrytis]

13 minutes ago, sp25 said:

The music labels have had a monopoly on the distribution of music since 78 records! With file sharing and streaming thats gone as is their ability to charge/overcharge (eg CDs) sell and sell again the same product. Shame Tidal has gone down that road but as has been said it seem to be a front for the labels.

 

 

With places like Bandcamp and Artist taking control of their music, the labels would like to be in charge but the industry is failing big time. Artists need to survive, labels not so mush.

[sp25]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

It seems what has been reported here is the labels are sending MQA files as regular high res FLAC to the streaming services. So people are paying extra to stream rhigh res FLAC files and getting shit MQA instead. Isn't that a bait an switch?

Certainly a lack of transparency! and transparency in music and in what we are being sold is what we want! It does seem to stink

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

 

With places like Bandcamp and Artist taking control of their music, the labels would like to be in charge but the industry is failing big time. Artists need to survive, labels not so mush.

The major labels are doing fantastic. Streaming is bring them back to the revenue levels of CD. 

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The major labels are doing fantastic. Streaming is bring them back to the revenue levels of CD. 

 

Since I don't stream - I wish they would just die.

[daverich4]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

The Tidal store still sells FLAC downloads, no mention of MQA. So they must have both versions on their server? 

Are you sure Tidal SELLS downloads? I can’t find any place to purchase music from them. You can download music from them for offline listening but it will disappear the minute you end your subscription. 

[botrytis]

16 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

Are you sure Tidal SELLS downloads? I can’t find any place to purchase music from them. You can download music from them for offline listening but it will disappear the minute you end your subscription. 

 

https://store.tidal.com/us/

 

 

[KeenObserver]

On the 12th Forbes reported that millions of new MQA tracks were coming to Tidal.

That's incredible! MQA and Warner must have spent the last 20 or 30 years in the studio authenticating and remastering all those tracks!

[UkPhil]

11 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

On the 12th Forbes reported that millions of new MQA tracks were coming to Tidal.

That's incredible! MQA and Warner must have spent the last 20 or 30 years in the studio authenticating and remastering all those tracks!

They have been doing for quite a while by all accounts I saw some post by Ken Forsythe on a thread in MQA fan site 

[Tintinabulum]

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

You can't put lipstick on a pig to make Miss America.

Well put...kinds sums it up nicely.

[KeenObserver]

2 hours ago, UkPhil said:

They have been doing for quite a while by all accounts I saw some post by Ken Forsythe on a thread in MQA fan site 

 

Do you think every one of those tracks was "authenticated" and carefully mastered, or do you think they were dumped into a hopper and out came the MQA sausage?

Bob Stuart goes in front of a camera an tells about the careful MQA authentication process.  How cynical do you have to be to do that?  He is just a used car salesman selling a 30  year old piece of crap and telling you it's a Rolls Royce.

[UkPhil]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Do you think every one of those tracks was "authenticated" and carefully mastered, or do you think they were dumped into a hopper and out came the MQA sausage?

Bob Stuart goes in front of a camera an tells about the careful MQA authentication process.  How cynical do you have to be to do that?  He is just a used car salesman selling a 30  year old piece of crap and telling you it's a Rolls Royce.

This catalogue of music must have been batch converted, most of these files MQA highlights them as green they are not authenticated at source so the transfers are just reworked 16/44.1, why would hide these files behind a proprietary wall if you didn’t have another motive to do so, this is not about bettering sound for the consumer. 
 

[KeenObserver]

1 minute ago, UkPhil said:

This catalogue of music must have been batch converted, most of these files MQA highlights them as green they are not authenticated at source so the transfers are just reworked 16/44.1, why would hide these files behind a proprietary wall if you didn’t have another motive to do so, this is not about bettering sound for the consumer. 
 

 

So these are actually 13 bit crap?

[Tintinabulum]

32 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Do you think every one of those tracks was "authenticated" and carefully mastered, or do you think they were dumped into a hopper and out came the MQA sausage?

I thought the theory was that the characteristics of the ADC in the original studio recording are compensated for by (filtering) in the replaying DAC. So yeah, sausage.