MQA is Vaporware

[AudioDoctor]

On 12/25/2020 at 10:09 AM, BigWilliam said:

But what has changed with apple since Jobs died that required any real leadership?

 

Apple Silicon

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

Except it isn't, in fact the entire current business model of streaming is not guaranteed to stay, those that report financials clearly lose huge money every single quarter, including Spotify who has the largest paid subscriber base. While the labels love it, they are the only ones making money, the streaming services do not and the artists aren't exactly pleased either. That appears unsustainable in its current form.

Given MQA's only current delivery method is the money losing Tidal (unless you are counting the stillborn MQA-CD which GUTB might be), I'd say there is no proof at all that it's here to stay.

 

 

So the GUTB crystal ball sees download services such as HDtracks being forced to shut down due to MQA?

 

That same GUTB crystal ball indicates the labels would continue to approve hi-rez releases "in all formats"? Not if their greedy accountant/lawyer top execs have their way. What are the formats (plural) you refer to? If they killed the standard Redbook streams in favor of lossy MQA-CD, what makes you think they would continue releasing actual Redbook CD media at all?

There's no crystal balls? Have any audiophile labels stopped releasing hi-res and switched over to MQA? I don't know if a single one.

 

 

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

You just parroted the stance of the main stream audio press, including right here in this very thread several years ago. That is of course exactly what the labels and MQA want everyone to think, while they slowly quietly eliminate consumer choice.

 

Well...look. The labels are the ones who will decide if and how they release their catalogues for hi-res. If there was no MQA there's no reason to believe they'd start releasing lossless hi-res when that technology has been around and in very wide usage for many years before MQA came out. So, in reality, MQA provides more choices by enticing the labels to release their catalogues in a hi-res format. Let's say MQA is just snakeoil -- the big labels weren't going to release their catalogues in hi-res ANYWAY so what difference does it make if MQA comes along and ends up being no different than CD-quality?

 

Now here's a crystal ball prediction: if the streaming services die, the labels will obviously try to figure out how to market their catalogues to consumers. The audiophile labels won't care because their market is small but dedicated and big spenders. If they have these giant MQA catalogues which allows them to market them as hi-res with the bandwidth of regular CD audio, I don't imagine they'll just abandon them without trying to make money off them. They'll keep pushing it. Also, I very much doubt streaming is going anywhere -- maybe the players will consolidate and come up with an economical platform, but that won't kill MQA by itself.

 

Again, lossless hi-res compression has been around for ages and it's in very wide usage, way wider than MQA. The labels simply decided they didn't like it. So what's the solution?

 

 

 

[BigWilliam]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Apple Silicon

 

That was probably part of jobs plan too, they've been trying to control every part of their supply chain for a longggg time

[The Computer Audiophile]

Stick to audio guys. 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

The labels are the ones who will decide if and how they release their catalogues for hi-res.

Actually depending on the exact contract language in place, it is often the label in tandem with the artist, a good contract prohibits the label from doing anything without the artist's approval. Unfortunately many artists did not have good representation and signed a bad contract.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

If there was no MQA there's no reason to believe they'd start releasing lossless hi-res when that technology has been around and in very wide usage for many years before MQA came out. So, in reality, MQA provides more choices by enticing the labels to release their catalogues in a hi-res format.

False, and more parroting of the audio press. The labels long ago released a very wide range of their titles on hi-rez, not only on physical media such as SACD and DVD-Audio, but then on a much greater scale with downloads. Those same transfers are available on Qobuz right now without any MQA crap. This idea that MQA enables some larger swath of records to be issued as hi-rez is total bullshit. No one needs MQA for that, it was already happening en masse without MQA. Further, MQA is not hi-rez.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Let's say MQA is just snakeoil -- the big labels weren't going to release their catalogues in hi-res ANYWAY so what difference does it make if MQA comes along and ends up being no different than CD-quality?

Because the labels were in fact releasing hi-rez, and the only pause there is if their accountants and lawyers are told of a manner they can do that that cheats the customer while enriching the label, they'll go for that instead of actual hi-rez downloads, or even reissued CD-quality albums.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

The audiophile labels won't care because their market is small but dedicated and big spenders. If they have these giant MQA catalogues which allows them to market them as hi-res with the bandwidth of regular CD audio, I don't imagine they'll just abandon them without trying to make money off them.

They won't, because the audiophile labels know that MQA is complete BS, they wouldn't stake their reputation on such garbage. They wouldn't be able to market it as hi-rez when they already do the real thing, only in the fantasy land of magazines and gear manufacturers/dealers is MQA considered hi-rez. Why do you think audiophile labels care about that bogus claim that MQA delivers hi-rez with "the bandwidth of regular CD audio"? the audiophile labels don't engage in anything currently that makes bandwidth important to them, and it's a false claim anyway, regular FLAC is just as good at bandwidth savings, and if it were not already completely moot, it will be shortly with the agent of 5g.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

So what's the solution?

Don't play their game or support their bad greedy decision in any way. Don't buy any MQA hardware (too late for GUTB), don't stream any MQA track versions, in fact, don't subscribe to Tidal at all. That sends the message with the wallet, and it will be heard loud and clear.

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

Actually depending on the exact contract language in place, it is often the label in tandem with the artist, a good contract prohibits the label from doing anything without the artist's approval. Unfortunately many artists did not have good representation and signed a bad contract.

 

False, and more parroting of the audio press. The labels long ago released a very wide range of their titles on hi-rez, not only on physical media such as SACD and DVD-Audio, but then on a much greater scale with downloads. Those same transfers are available on Qobuz right now without any MQA crap. This idea that MQA enables some larger swath of records to be issued as hi-rez is total bullshit. No one needs MQA for that, it was already happening en masse without MQA. Further, MQA is not hi-rez.

 

Because the labels were in fact releasing hi-rez, and the only pause there is if their accountants and lawyers are told of a manner they can do that that cheats the customer while enriching the label, they'll go for that instead of actual hi-rez downloads, or even reissued CD-quality albums.

 

They won't, because the audiophile labels know that MQA is complete BS, they wouldn't stake their reputation on such garbage. They wouldn't be able to market it as hi-rez when they already do the real thing, only in the fantasy land of magazines and gear manufacturers/dealers is MQA considered hi-rez. Why do you think audiophile labels care about that bogus claim that MQA delivers hi-rez with "the bandwidth of regular CD audio"? the audiophile labels don't engage in anything currently that makes bandwidth important to them, and it's a false claim anyway, regular FLAC is just as good at bandwidth savings, and if it were not already completely moot, it will be shortly with the agent of 5g.

 

Don't play their game or support their bad greedy decision in any way. Don't buy any MQA hardware (too late for GUTB), don't stream any MQA track versions, in fact, don't subscribe to Tidal at all. That sends the message with the wallet, and it will be heard loud and clear.

So....what hardware and albums did you use to evaluate MQA again?

[KeenObserver]

There is NOTHING that MQA does that is a benefit to the music consumer.  There is nothing that MQA claims to do that cannot be done better by non proprietary means. MQA produces an added cost to the music consumer. 

MQA should be rejected by the music consumer for a number of reasons.

[JoeWhip]

10 hours ago, BigWilliam said:

 

That was probably part of jobs plan too, they've been trying to control every part of their supply chain for a longggg time

It is called vertical integration and is a smart business practice. Just ask Elon Musk.

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, GUTB said:

So....what hardware and albums did you use to evaluate MQA again?

Duurrrr, when you start your MQA listening impressions thread, I'll be sure not to post in it, because I will never own or use MQA anything.

 

McGill study too deep I take it? Must be, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to turn this into a subjective sound quality discussion, which none of us are interested in at all. That too is parroting the mainstream audio press, and just like them, that's all you've got.

[lucretius]

49 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

It is called vertical integration and is a smart business practice. Just ask Elon Musk.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-are-legal-barriers-vertical-integration.asp

 

Also see the section on vertical mergers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Vertical_mergers

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Here is a nice example of how clueless the press is.

 

 

Michael Fremer, from Analog Planet-

 

"The TIDAL MQA streamed 96/24 version was like another recording altogether. The piano sounded more like a piano made of wood. The church space on the live performance was well-separated from the instrument and it was overall far more coherent and satisfying. I don’t understand those who are MQA resistant especially those who view it as a “plot” to control their recorded musical existence.  And, not surprising (to me at least), the extremely well mastered and flawlessly pressed vinyl record sounded very much like the MQA 96/24 stream.

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/lang-lang—-classical-music-superstar-critics-love-hate-hate-delivers-his-goldberg-variations

 

 

[UkPhil]

16 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Here is a nice example of how clueless the press is.

 

 

Michael Fremer, from Analog Planet-

 

"The TIDAL MQA streamed 96/24 version was like another recording altogether. The piano sounded more like a piano made of wood. The church space on the live performance was well-separated from the instrument and it was overall far more coherent and satisfying. I don’t understand those who are MQA resistant especially those who view it as a “plot” to control their recorded musical existence.  And, not surprising (to me at least), the extremely well mastered and flawlessly pressed vinyl record sounded very much like the MQA 96/24 stream.

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/lang-lang—-classical-music-superstar-critics-love-hate-hate-delivers-his-goldberg-variations

 

 

Fremer is playing safe, as if someone who’s detested digital for years suddenly will accept a proprietary consumer format, I will say it definitely confirms the marketing spin MQA has done on the industry, this juggernaut will take some derailing 

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Fremer is playing safe, as if someone who’s detested digital for years suddenly will accept a proprietary consumer format, I will say it definitely confirms the marketing spin MQA has done on the industry, this juggernaut will take some derailing 

 

He's probably cool with it considering that his beloved vinyl is also a "proprietary consumer format".

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

20 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Fremer is playing safe, as if someone who’s detested digital for years suddenly will accept a proprietary consumer format, I will say it definitely confirms the marketing spin MQA has done on the industry, this juggernaut will take some derailing 

He is more than playing it safe, Funny how each contributor there found there own angle to get on board

with MQA. He is latching on to "it sounds like the vinyl" nonsense.

[KeenObserver]

Sounds like the last gasp of a desperate publication.

[KeenObserver]

Trying to sound relevant while everything around you is moving on.

[KeenObserver]

Using five thousand words to differentiate this months review from last months review, which used five thousand words to differentiate itself from the previous months review and so on and so forth.

I think those publications that swooned for MQA are trying to regain the respect that they lost.  What person that truly understands MQA would put any faith in these publications? 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

Fremer is playing safe, as if someone who’s detested digital for years suddenly will accept a proprietary consumer format, I will say it definitely confirms the marketing spin MQA has done on the industry, this juggernaut will take some derailing 

Fremer doesn't detest digital. He mostly doesn't like CD.  He's fairly often praised hi-res or DSD versions of recordings, even saying they can be superior to a vinyl version in some reviews.

Of course we know who he writes for, so apparently he's part of the groupthink there about MQA.

[R1200CL]

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

There is nothing that MQA claims to do that cannot be done better by non proprietary means.

So MQA has a mission ? 😂

 

Anyway, why didn’t someone then create what MQA does a long time ago ?

How can it be Bob and his friends is so highly respected in the AES. And get his patents accepted. 
Are they all idiots or ?

 

Why do “we” here at AS know better ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

How can it be Bob and his friends is so highly respected in the AES.

 

Please provide evidence for this and if you have some, how it has anything to do with MQA and the other questionable things he has invented. 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

And get his patents accepted. 

 

Anyone can get a patent "accepted."

[mocenigo]

On 12/25/2020 at 5:09 PM, BigWilliam said:

 

I mean beyond managing to control his greed and only cash in on dongles instead of user data...

 

He did well for apple

 

But what has changed with apple since Jobs died that required any real leadership?

 

He's just running off job's choices. And monetizing dongles, he really know how to sell peripherals

 

You do not make 1.6Trillion in dongles.

 

What requires leadership? Two things from the top of my head.

1. Sacking a resident god like Ive that was (without Jobs's control) favouring form over function leading us to the failure of the butterfly keyboard and some MacBooks that needed two mobo and three keyboard replacements in 3 years. 

2. Walking back on keyboard design instead of claiming "you are typing on it wrong" as Jobs would have done.

3. Driving a transition from Intel to Apple Silicon (you know which architecture it is).

4. More openness: after the last announcements some engineers were allowed to talk about their contributions on social media – something completely unthinkable at the time of Steve Jobs.

 

and I could go on, but you prove there is one thing that is more annoying than apple fanboys: apple bashers.

 

 Roberto

[MikeyFresh]

28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Anyway, why didn’t someone then create what MQA does a long time ago ?

Upsampling with leaky MP filters? That is old news.

 

28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Are they all idiots or ?

No, but they are helping the record labels impose DRM.

 

28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Why do “we” here at AS know better ?

It's not just we here, various other credible sources including Archimago's blog tell the exact same story, as do various well regarded manufacturers including (but not limited to) Benchmark, Linn, and EXOGAL. Why would you (or anyone really) trust Bob Stuart's word more than theirs?

 

Those above mentioned companies (and many others that simply skipped MQA without giving it word one of credibility or official consideration) are far more successful over the decades than BS's own Meridian ever was. No comparison actually.

 

I think the real question is why do YOU wish to so blindly trust Bob Stuart as some sort of audio god that not only knows all, but knows it better than everyone else?

[MarkusBarkus]

8 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

How can it be Bob and his friends is so highly respected in the AES. And get his patents accepted. 
Are they all idiots or ?

 

Why do “we” here as AS know better ?

They're not idiots. They're business people. And some people stand to make a lot of money from this "new" technology. 
 

The patent is more on the "point of novelty" of the technology/process. I don't recall there being analysis from the patent folks on whether people will like the technology, or whether it will be profitable.

 

For me, I am not qualified/trained to be able to refute what folks here are saying and showing, but my read is that it's a solution to a problem I'm not having. And the marketing reads like BS.

 

When my filters decode this, my blue light indicates deceptive practices. That is what I don't like.
 

Hell, they can sell MQA Beta-Max tapes if they want. But I quit Tidal on Christmas day. My gift to JayZ. I noted the reason why was their handling of MQA on the site.

 

For me, that's the best I can do on my own, to show my position. I am following the thread here and considering the arguments. And thank you for taking time to poke this skunk. 

 

 

[BigWilliam]

56 minutes ago, mocenigo said:

 

You do not make 1.6Trillion in dongles.

 

What requires leadership? Two things from the top of my head.

1. Sacking a resident god like Ive that was (without Jobs's control) favouring form over function leading us to the failure of the butterfly keyboard and some MacBooks that needed two mobo and three keyboard replacements in 3 years. 

2. Walking back on keyboard design instead of claiming "you are typing on it wrong" as Jobs would have done.

3. Driving a transition from Intel to Apple Silicon (you know which architecture it is).

4. More openness: after the last announcements some engineers were allowed to talk about their contributions on social media – something completely unthinkable at the time of Steve Jobs.

 

and I could go on, but you prove there is one thing that is more annoying than apple fanboys: apple bashers.

 

 Roberto

 

Dongles, chargers, and earpods? Oh yea you'll pad those numbers. That's his major contribution.

 

Those are the biggest earners he came up with

 

Mac, app store, iphone, ipad all the same.

We're going green so we will no longer include chargers, genius.

 

The pods alone my god

 

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

So MQA has a mission ? 😂

 

Anyway, why didn’t someone then create what MQA does a long time ago ?

How can it be Bob and his friends is so highly respected in the AES. And get his patents accepted. 
Are they all idiots or ?

 

Why do “we” here at AS know better ?

Instead of asking the same questions that have been asked and answered a hundred times already, perhaps you might want to read the past 844 pages. There is a plethora of information in these 844 pages.  I would say that every aspect of MQA has been examined.  Of course, MQA themselves keep implying the same things over and over again.