MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Again: this is the marketing behind Mqa. And they are good at that. 

They are not good at marketing, it's a bunch of double talk BS, fully debunked now years ago, to which they have had exactly zero substantive rebuttal. Poorly making misleading and false claims does not equal "they are god at that".

 

Does it work on someone with a simpleton understanding, or who has been lied to in a confidence game supported by the audio press and equipment manufacturers? Perhaps.

[The Computer Audiophile]

32 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Chris doesn't like MQA. I don't like MQA. But that does not mean this is an anti-MQA site. Some people here like it, and you can post on a variety of topics. Some people may disagree with some of your posts....

 But as far as I can tell, of the 5 audio web sites I regularly read, and the 1 I occasionally read, the majority of posters on all of them don't like MQA. There's one site where I think the distribution is reversed, but I don't read it anymore (not because of MQA).

Exactly. I really tried to like MQA, but the facts turned me against it. This doesn’t make the site anti-MQA. People are free to like or love it around here. Makes no difference to me how people increase their enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. 

[MikeyFresh]

7 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Everybody can have a bad day and it seems this is yours. Just relax and MAYBE tomorrow can be a better one for you. 

I'm not having a bad day at all, rather nice temperatures for November here in NY, took a long walk in the park this morning. Last night was good too, a little Jack Daniel's and the Hendrix Live in Maui Blu-ray for Friday night entertainment. Not bad at all. I see right through your ploy, strike one.

 

7 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

this said... I really don't understand all your rage. Apart some personal reasons i'm not interested in. 

There's no rage, trust me, and nothing personal either, you made that up. This is about facts vs. fiction with regard to bogus claims about the supposed efficacy of MQA, and more importantly, the threat to consumers and indeed the entire music distribution system that it represents. Nice try again, but stick to the facts instead of trying to create a false representation of me or indeed this entire site. You've thus far made a pretty lame attempt.

 

7 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

I've read, in the recent years, many technical white papers about Mqa and, considering my job, I think I have enough experience to understand the business model and strategy behind this Mqa "standard". 
 

So what?

Goodie for you, I'm glad you are content with those "white papers" (did you mean Bob Stuart penned double talk?), but if your occupation truly allowed you to understand the threat to consumers and every stop in the music production and distribution chain being saddled with BS crypto-DRM, BS origami and magic filtering arrangements, BS removal of time domain "smearing", BS "correction" of all known ADC deficiencies, BS upsampling of a 44.1/48 kHz source, BS "authentication" of the artist's original intent, and last but not least BS "better than the original master" claims (better than the artist's original intent?) then you'd have to understand where we are coming from here.

 

We don't want to pay an MQA tax that allows the major record labels to provide us with inferior quality playback solely for the purpose of lining their pockets at our expense, and also at additional expense to artists who would be forced to use only certain production facilities and techniques to make music in an MQA compatible format, that too would be taxed.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

A lot of people hate Mqa. Listen to Qobuz. Listen to Amazon HD. Where's the issue?

We've explained the issue, repeatedly, but you are intentionally ignoring it. Strike two.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

But I'm also aware that it sounds good. And this is what I'm interested in. 

Did you read the McGill study? Sound like you are parroting the audio press here, with a little brand and people name dropping mixed in. You know, Bluesound, and, uh... Ken Forsythe? I have news for you, KF is a nobody, the U.S. importer of Meridian, Lee Scoggins' Atlanta area buddy, and one of the lame ass attack mongers present at CC's RMAF2018 presentation.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

The day one streaming platform decreases its quality I'll abandon it. 

Excellent, sounds like you've dropped TIDAL then. Congrats, you made the right move, lower quality at a higher price while simultaneously threatening the entire music distribution and creation process makes no sense for anyone other than MQA itself, and their partner/investors including Warner, Universal, and Sony.

 

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Otherwise I'll continue to pay for the subscriptions as I'm doing now. Without asking for your permission...

I never suggested that you or anyone needed my permission for anything whatsoever, that's another one you just made up, a total fabrication. You just struck out.

[lucretius]

On 11/20/2020 at 8:51 AM, KeenObserver said:

The answer for people that care for the future of music distribution and have a subscription to Tidal is to just cancel the subscription.

 I cancelled Tidal quite some time ago.  Qobuz is not available to me.  Instead, I have steadily been buying used CDs.

[UkPhil]

An indication showing the amount of 44.1 albums available for streaming on Tidal after the Warner plug in 

[lucretius]

On 11/20/2020 at 12:06 PM, botrytis said:

3. There is not 3rd unfold - it has been proven to be just an upsampling ploy.

 

Where are the 1st and 2nd "unfolds"?  I don't think the any part of the MQA playback chain can legitimately called an "unfold".  IIRC, all that happens during MQA playback is (1) a blue light is triggered within the DAC; (2) depending on the DAC, a hi-res sample rate number appears on the screen even though that is a baldface lie; and (3) some generic MQA filter is applied -- which is not significantly different than a standard minimum phase filter.  Again, where exactly are the "unfolds"?

 

The only thing those magic 7 bits of MQA are good for is (1) lying to the consumer; and (2) DRM.  Give me back my 7 bits of music*, thank you.

 

*This is even more critical for MQA-CD, an unforgivable blasphemy of an audio file format.

[botrytis]

13 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Just my personal opinion. 
i have subscriptions to Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon HD. I like to make direct comparisons. 
I regularly listen to music through Vinyl LPs and Sacd. 
so to say that the media is just a vehicle for music. 
Mqa, behind its technical background, has GREAT marketing. Bob Stewart is an entrepreneur and a manager and knows very well what "the industry" wants. He just took advantage of his technical and marketing skills developed at Meridian. 
This said I personally don't see , for the moment, a "big brother's watching you" situation. 
if you don't like Mqa stuff you can use Qobuz or Amazon HD. Quality is superb for both as it's hi rez Flac and Qobuz user interface is really good (Amazon HD has margins for improvements...). 
When I move from Qobuz to Tidal Mqa I don't feel I'm moving from paradise to hell: they are both great listening experiences.
And both my Tannoy Canterbury SE or Martin Logan Ethos speakers are quite revealing. 

 

 

Marketing or lying? MQA was supposed to be good and superior technology - it isn't - MP3's are better than MQA. MP3's do not have artifacts made by the technology embedded in the music.

 

Problem being the labels are just shoving out only MQA versions, without giving out non-MQA versions. They are doing a 'Bait and Switch' scam.

 

MQA is just that a scam on the public because BS wants to get his pound of flesh somehow.

[JoeWhip]

Alex comes in and starts right in on the MQA thread and then bolts. Interesting.........

[botrytis]

10 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Everybody can have a bad day and it seems this is yours. Just relax and MAYBE tomorrow can be a better one for you. 
 

this said... I really don't understand all your rage. Apart some personal reasons i'm not interested in. 
 

I've read, in the recent years, many technical white papers about Mqa and, considering my job, I think I have enough experience to understand the business model and strategy behind this Mqa "standard". 
 

So what?

 

A lot of people hate Mqa. Listen to Qobuz. Listen to Amazon HD. Where's the issue? Just don't start crusades to convince people of your one and only truth. 
 

Others are Mqa fan-boys. Listen to Tidal. Where's the issue? Just don't start crusades to convince people of your one and only truth. 
 

As written in my previous post I'm perfectly aware that there is a planned strategy and great marketing behind Mqa. Wow: what a news!

 

But I'm also aware that it sounds good. And this is what I'm interested in. 
 

I listen to music with Qobuz, Tidal and Amazon HD because I want to listen with my ears without being influenced by one fan-boy or the other. 
The day one streaming platform decreases its quality I'll abandon it. 
Otherwise I'll continue to pay for the subscriptions as I'm doing now. Without asking for your permission...

 

There is no bad day when it comes to MQA marketing - they have never changed their tune. They have never responded to the science that proved their system was utter BS. They are like Donald Trump saying he won the US Presidential Election. It is in point NOT A TRUE fact, but they believe it.

 

MQA keeps saying all this about 3 unfolds etc. There is no 3 unfolds - it is all pointed out in this thread and by Archimago and others. The filters that are used by MQA produce huge artifacts that are beyond the cutoff of the music in a track. They add blurring - they do not de-blur. All this has been proven as SCIENTIFIC FACT.

 

In the end, it is about MQA trying to control the end to end music industry to give us an inferior product that will cost us more.

 

All the recording industry cares about is Quarterly profit.

[botrytis]

16 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Where are the 1st and 2nd "unfolds"?  I don't think the any part of the MQA playback chain can legitimately called an "unfold".  IIRC, all that happens during MQA playback is (1) a blue light is triggered within the DAC; (2) depending on the DAC, a hi-res sample rate number appears on the screen even though that is a baldface lie; and (3) some generic MQA filter is applied -- which is not significantly different than a standard minimum phase filter.  Again, where exactly are the "unfolds"?

 

The only thing those magic 7 bits of MQA are good for is (1) lying to the consumer; and (2) DRM.  Give me back my 7 bits of music, thank you.

 

 

Using their marketing speak, is all.

[lucretius]

You know, the minute Bob Stuart started calling it origami, that he was full of it.  The only thing getting folded is the paper currency (an appropriate use of "origami") consumers are being conned out of.

[ARQuint]

11 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

this said... I really don't understand all your rage. Apart some personal reasons i'm not interested in. 

There's no rage, trust me, and nothing personal either, you made that up. This is about facts vs. fiction with regard to bogus claims about the supposed efficacy of MQA, and more importantly, the threat to consumers and indeed the entire music distribution system that it represents. Nice try again, but stick to the facts instead of trying to create a false representation of me or indeed this entire site. You've thus far made a pretty lame attempt.

 

***************************************

 

No, Alex, you're correct—he's angry, all right. Any non-aligned party (a non-audiophile) could readily glean that from his responses. " Angry" has been the default mode of expression on this thread for 800-plus pages now. With dashes of contempt, dismissiveness, disrespect, paranoia, preening sarcasm, and wild accusations thrown in for good measure. Things had gone kind of quiet for months when a few of most vitriolic anti-MQA partisans began to cross lines that weren't acceptable to the owner of this site—they left, slamming the door behind them, before they could potentially be booted. So these guys who are still at it here are sure happy to have you show up.

 

The thing is that Chris Connaker feels as strongly as anyone else who suspects either the technology or MQA's business model as being fraudulent, yet he manages not to foam at the mouth. His criticisms are certainly pointed but he doesn't resort to hysteria or personal insult. As you've found out in short order, anyone with anything the least bit positive to say about MQA, or even an open-minded inquisitiveness, is either dumb, gullible, too inexperienced with such matters, or somehow in on the scam— and endures the wrath of whoever constitutes the mob at the moment. CC would rather there be a continuing discussion without undue ire; that would more effectively advance the cause. He has pointed out repeatedly that this is a hobby, for crying out loud, and there's room for differing points of view.

 

Andrew Quint

TAS

 

 

 

 

[KeenObserver]

12 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

There's no rage, trust me, and nothing personal either, you made that up. This is about facts vs. fiction with regard to bogus claims about the supposed efficacy of MQA, and more importantly, the threat to consumers and indeed the entire music distribution system that it represents. Nice try again, but stick to the facts instead of trying to create a false representation of me or indeed this entire site. You've thus far made a pretty lame attempt.

 

***************************************

 

No, Alex, you're correct—he's angry, all right. Any non-aligned party (a non-audiophile) could readily glean that from his responses. " Angry" has been the default mode of expression on this thread for 800-plus pages now. With dashes of contempt, dismissiveness, disrespect, paranoia, preening sarcasm, and wild accusations thrown in for good measure. Things had gone kind of quiet for months when a few of most vitriolic anti-MQA partisans began to cross lines that weren't acceptable to the owner of this site—they left, slamming the door behind them, before they could potentially be booted. So these guys who are still at it here are sure happy to have you show up.

 

The thing is that Chris Connaker feels as strongly as anyone else who suspects either the technology or MQA's business model as being fraudulent, yet he manages not to foam at the mouth. His criticisms are certainly pointed but he doesn't resort to hysteria or personal insult. As you've found out in short order, anyone with anything the least bit positive to say about MQA, or even an open-minded inquisitiveness, is either dumb, gullible, too inexperienced with such matters, or somehow in on the scam— and endures the wrath of whoever constitutes the mob at the moment. CC would rather there be a continuing discussion without undue ire; that would more effectively advance the cause. He has pointed out repeatedly that this is a hobby, for crying out loud, and there's room for differing points of view.

 

Andrew Quint

TAS

 

 

 

 

 

And, again, anyone that has anything that casts doubt on MQA is hysterical and angry.

Yet, what I see is people pointing out the facts about MQA.

I understand your position.  You have to answer to your masters at TAS.

But I don't think that people are going to lie down and let MQA have its way.

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I understand your position.  You have to answer to your masters at TAS.

 

 

Yeah, he wouldn't get demoted from the second-to-last rung on the masthead to the bottom.

 

Or heaven forbid, lose his position reviewing obscure classical musical for that esteemed publication.

[MikeyFresh]

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

he's angry, all right.

More fake news Andy, and you've just doubled down on Alex's attempt to paint me as angry. I'm not angry at all, and you would have absolutely no way of knowing anyway without sitting here right next to me. Not angry, but laughing, at you.

 

Whether or not you care for my writing style, or my willingness to point out facts, or my suspicion when a new member here with all of 3 total posts on the forum then launches into yet another pro-MQA "hey I don't see the problem" line of BS, while claiming to be a subscriber to three different paid streaming services... matters not. Suspicion does not equal paranoia (that's your portrayal), look it up Mr. "Journalist".

 

You work for one of the trade publications complicit in all of this nonsense, the stupid confidence game that fed this POS technology some level of acceptance and traction. I suggest you stop trying to shoot the messenger and start trying to explain how a publication purported to serve it's subscriber base could be so blatantly wrong, and unwilling to admit it to this day. You owe your readership a full retraction, based on the facts that have been presented, and never rebutted in any way, either by the trade press or MQA themselves. Until then, you lack credibility.

 

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

So these guys who are still at it here are sure happy to have you show up.

Explain why that would make someone "happy" Andy. I personally had not posted here with any regularity at all for many months, better part of a year if memory serves. So this is another misrepresentation by you, acting as if members like me wait around here dying for someone to argue with. That too is bullshit.

 

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

The thing is that Chris Connaker feels as strongly as anyone else who suspects either the technology or MQA's business model as being fraudulent, yet he manages not to foam at the mouth.

No one is foaming at the mouth, more fake news and just another lame attempt by you to sensationalize and paint the members of this forum as some sort of uncivil hoard. That whole civility thing is a weak hand to play, but I guess it's all you've got, based on never having any credible rebuttal or interesting insight into the actual facts and issues surrounding the consumer and systemic threat that is MQA.

 

I for one take umbrage with your high-brow approach here, as if you are on some other lofty level and from time to time need to arbitrate that this is really a civility issue. Thats a deflect and you know it, why not discuss the real issues at hand rather than try to change the subject? Because you have nothing, that's why, so you keep returning to the same playbook hoping it can take on new life. Go ahead, complain to Chris about civility, whimper on, and then notice how my tone changes not at all.

 

 

[JoeWhip]

I would say to my friend Andy that just because you may be paranoid doesn’t mean that there isn’t someone out to get you. I would point out that the anti MQAers here have been right about a few things in their predictions. The fact that Warners is now removing their non MQA catalogue from Tidal being one. Frankly, I have more than enough quality music to last me a lifetime as I know you do as well. The push to MQA only will just increase the sharing of the non MQA stuff among those that care and cut into Warner’s and others bottom line. If they want to make MQA more readily available, I am fine with that too. Just don’t cut off the other stuff as well. I have no time for streaming anyway as the artist only gets screwed. I have personal experience with this. I would rather the artist get my money.

[MikeyFresh]

34 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I would point out that the anti MQAers here have been right about a few things in their predictions. The fact that Warners is now removing their non MQA catalogue from Tidal being one.

Well said, these are the recent developments being completely ignored by both the new member here, and Andy too in his most recent attempt at a deflect.

 

35 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Frankly, I have more than enough quality music to last me a lifetime

So do I, and if this MQA crap is force fed to Qobuz, I'll drop that subscription in a heartbeat.

 

36 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

The push to MQA only will just increase the sharing of the non MQA stuff among those that care and cut into Warner’s and others bottom line

This is true, and as pointed out by Chris, another example of the labels being their own worst enemy at times. Driven by greed rather than sheer stupidity however.

 

38 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have no time for streaming anyway as the artist only gets screwed. I have personal experience with this. I would rather the artist get my money.

Also true, and in its current form, unsustainable.

[WAM]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

As you've found out in short order, anyone with anything the least bit positive to say about MQA, or even an open-minded inquisitiveness, is either dumb, gullible, too inexperienced with such matters, or somehow in on the scam

 

As far as I am concerned, ... 

 

No, let me be sensible, no comments...

 

When I am in an benig mood, MQA is a solution for a problem that does not exist. When I am my usual cynical self, I call it a fraud. Open your eyes ARQ, MQA is a 21-century Ponzi-scheme.

[KeenObserver]

4 minutes ago, WAM said:

 

As far as I am concerned, ... 

 

No, let me be sensible, no comments...

 

When I am in an benig mood, MQA is a solution for a problem that does not exist. When I am my usual cynical self, I call it a fraud. Open your eyes ARQ, MQA is a 21-century Ponzi-scheme.

 

Quite honestly, I think that anyone with any intelligence knows exactly what MQA is.  Why they would support it is another matter.

[WAM]

I sincerely hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are right..

[ARQuint]

Fair enough, Mikey Fresh. I don't know if you're actually angry, and I apologize for saying so. But the tone of your response to Alex's initial post on the thread certainly sounds angry—it certainly sounded angry to Alex who apparently thought he was joining a discussion where he could offer a (rather benignly) different point of view. If he had been engaged in a more welcoming fashion, perhaps he could see the validity of many of your points.

 

This may surprise you but I am no advocate, closeted or otherwise, for MQA. I've have the technology in my system once or twice and didn't find it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, to put it mildly. But neither was it detrimental to SQ and because of it's, in my view, uncertain commercial future I don't consider the technology to be remotely any sort of existential threat to the audiophile pursuit. And this may really surprise you. MQA is not a front-and-center issue for anyone at the magazine and there is no required "party line" regarding MQA. This is something I would know and you would not, just like whether you're mad about MQA or merely....energized.

 

I will cop to this. My issue on this thread has always been civility and I'm certainly not sorry for that. I don't "whine" to Chris; I just comment and let the chips fall where they may. Postings that I feel are unnecessarily aggressive and unkind were in remission for a good long while, but they flared again when this poor guy wandered in. I pointed that out. You're welcome.

 

Andy Quint

 

P.S. I really don't think the music I write about for TAS is "esoteric." It may be unfamiliar to you if classical music isn't of particular interest to you as a listener. But the function of our music section—all genres—has been to review both material familiar to all and the best stuff that won't be on your radar if you aren't a jazz/rock/classical aficionado. And, of course, to point out the best-sounding examples.

[UkPhil]

Just now, WAM said:

I sincerely hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are right..

What Warner’s and MQA have just done this week is probably just the tip of the iceberg, no doubt Universals  CD back catalogue will be next for the sausage machine. 

[Mayfair]

16 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

What Warner’s and MQA have just done this week is probably just the tip of the iceberg, no doubt Universals  CD back catalogue will be next for the sausage machine. 

Seems so, if past is prologue. 
https://www.stereophile.com/content/universal-music-group-goes-mqa

[UkPhil]

3 minutes ago, Mayfair said:

Seems so, if past is prologue. 
https://www.stereophile.com/content/universal-music-group-goes-mqa

Yeah all shareholders with a vested interest in MQA, the only quiet one on the block has been Sony with little or no action in adding to Tidals roster.

 

[KeenObserver]

37 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Fair enough, Mikey Fresh. I don't know if you're actually angry, and I apologize for saying so. But the tone of your response to Alex's initial post on the thread certainly sounds angry—it certainly sounded angry to Alex who apparently thought he was joining a discussion where he could offer a (rather benignly) different point of view. If he had been engaged in a more welcoming fashion, perhaps he could see the validity of many of your points.

 

This may surprise you but I am no advocate, closeted or otherwise, for MQA. I've have the technology in my system once or twice and didn't find it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, to put it mildly. But neither was it detrimental to SQ and because of it's, in my view, uncertain commercial future I don't consider the technology to be remotely any sort of existential threat to the audiophile pursuit. And this may really surprise you. MQA is not a front-and-center issue for anyone at the magazine and there is no required "party line" regarding MQA. This is something I would know and you would not, just like whether you're mad about MQA or merely....energized.

 

I will cop to this. My issue on this thread has always been civility and I'm certainly not sorry for that. I don't "whine" to Chris; I just comment and let the chips fall where they may. Postings that I feel are unnecessarily aggressive and unkind were in remission for a good long while, but they flared again when this poor guy wandered in. I pointed that out. You're welcome.

 

Andy Quint

 

P.S. I really don't think the music I write about for TAS is "esoteric." It may be unfamiliar to you if classical music isn't of particular interest to you as a listener. But the function of our music section—all genres—has been to review both material familiar to all and the best stuff that won't be on your radar if you aren't a jazz/rock/classical aficionado. And, of course, to point out the best-sounding examples.

 

Mr. Quint.  It seems that you are bothered by perception of incivility on this thread.  Since you are not an advocate one way or the other, would it not make sense to simply ignore this thread?

I was trying to be as delicate and civil as possible.  If you find that it is still uncivil, please let me know.