MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

It is incredible what some people will do for money.   Some people rob banks.  Some people pay their workers in contaminated brandy.  And some people promote MQA.

[R1200CL]

17 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

He did manage to put an end to SACD according to this. 
 

So what would be a clever way to get rid of MQA ?

(if it’s a goal).

 

[MikeyFresh]

30 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

So what would be a clever way to get rid of MQA ?

Everyone boycott Tidal, and Warner Music, and any vendor peddling MQA hardware products.

[MarkusBarkus]

28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

So what would be a clever way to get rid of MQA ?

...per the article to which you linked, and business/life in general: you stop using it (DVD-A), or you out-compete it (iPod). It only exists to make money. If it doesn't make money, it ceases to exist, or is relegated to a niche market (sorry SACD--I still love ya).

 

You asked for clever; I gave you simple. Sorry...

[UkPhil]

7 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Everyone boycott Tidal, and Warner Music, and any vendor peddling MQA hardware products.

Seen as MQA is tiny when it comes to streaming if you take on board Spotify / Apple and behemoth Amazon, the issue isn’t Tidal the bigger issue is all the ground work has been done behind the scenes with the record companies buying into MQA ltd using Tidal as their test bench. If Tidal disappeared tomorrow I think the damage could already be done as the back catalogue could be processed as MQA and fed to all “lossless” companies as the only alternative keeping the revenue flowing. 

[MikeyFresh]

27 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Seen as MQA is tiny when it comes to streaming if you take on board Spotify / Apple and behemoth Amazon, the issue isn’t Tidal the bigger issue is all the ground work has been done behind the scenes with the record companies buying into MQA ltd using Tidal as their test bench. If Tidal disappeared tomorrow I think the damage could already be done as the back catalogue could be processed as MQA and fed to all “lossless” companies as the only alternative keeping the revenue flowing. 

Let us hope that is not the case, and in the meantime, perhaps their little experiment would be halted if the dollars start to vanish both from Tidal, and/or the licensing from MQA hardware vendors. Boycotting that might put enough of a dent for the record labels to think twice.

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Let us hope that is not the case, and in the meantime, perhaps their little experiment would be halted if the dollars start to vanish both from Tidal, and/or the licensing from MQA hardware vendors. Boycotting that might put enough of a dent for the record labels to think twice.

If I had to guess, I'd say Tidal is paying MQA between zero and $1 total. 

[MikeyFresh]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If I had to guess, I'd say Tidal is paying MQA between zero and $1 total. 

You're probably right, but still, money talks, and if it came to be that Tidal were purchased by Square for instance, then perhaps a flight of subscribers would be enough to persuade Tidal to undock their ship from MQA.

 

I'd also like to think hardware license revenue doesn't amount to much either, you'd think those manufacturers would have been smart enough to know MQA needs them worse than they need MQA, and driven a hard deal that produces next to nothing for MQA per unit sold. But if that were true, then a shunning of those manufacturers may not produce the desired result, if implementing MQA isn't costing them very much right now.

 

Lastly there would be the labels themselves, it originally looked like MQA thought they'd be charging the labels for the MQA encoding, but at least initially, that payment came in the reverse form of MQA giving equity to the labels, so I'm not sure at what point the labels would wish to consider shifting revenue to MQA itself, knowing they are part owners, or walking away if the big payday they were promised never materializes.

 

That's why I agree with @KeenObserver, boycott Warner, hit them in the pocketbook, and if you must stream a Warner artist, only do so if a non-MQA stream is available to you. If not, buy the CD, even if a used copy.

 

 

 

 

[R1200CL]

What will it cost to buy Tidal ? Or MQA ?

And would it be realistic to crow found enough money ? Even if it was only $10. 

 

I’m not sure boycotts will help.
Maybe advertising against them, but no one will be financing that. (Such things seems only to work for politicians). 

 

Can we hope for someone one day will show us this NDA that has to be signed ?

And be able to get the code ?

Can we convince some hackers to assist in the good cause ?

And will that even help at all. Probably not much, but the truth is always good. 
 

Is it realistic to have more interviews with Bob when situations allow for it, and will it help ? Has all questions been asked ?

I guess he have sold his products now, so no reason to promote it anymore.

 

If one should sue someone, who would that be and on what basis. You’re buying hires, but not getting it ?

Provenance ?

 

So is the battle lost ?

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, R1200CL said:

Is it realistic to have more interviews with Bob when situations allow for it, and will it help ?

 

Is it helpful to interview Baghdad Bob if seeking the truth? No, whether it's BB or BS, they never tell a straight or complete story. Giving them more space to talk is only beneficial to them, not consumers. 

[MikeyFresh]

13 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

I’m not sure boycotts will help.

They help, money talks.

 

14 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Is it realistic to have more interviews with Bob when situations allow for it, and will it help ?

No.

 

14 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Has all questions been asked ?

Yes. Read the thread as @KeenObserversuggested.

 

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, whether it's BB or BS, they never tell a straight or complete story. Giving them more space to talk is only beneficial to them, not consumers. 

Well said.

 

[GUTB]

11 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

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.

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors. What non-MQA process can do this? Record in DXD? Move back to master reels? 

[MarkusBarkus]

BTW: to heave another log on the anti-Warner fire, one reading of the below excerpt from the @R1200CLlinked article is Warner has a long-standing leverage and greed-based strategy for biz dev:

 

"So why was SACD not a commercial success? 

 

First, there was a format war. The DVD Forum, headed by Toshiba, refused to pay patent royalties to Sony and Philips, and they launched a competing format: DVD-Audio, which couldn’t be played in a CD player.
 

Ironically, the royalty for an SACD was the same as for a CD: $.10 per disc, while the royalty on a DVD-Audio disc was around four times higher. 

 

Record labels chose sides. The Warner group, part of the DVD Forum, went with DVD-Audio, and Universal and Sony chose SACD." -- Garry Margolis

https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/why-super-audio-cd-failed/

 

 

 

[UkPhil]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors. What non-MQA process can do this? Record in DXD? Move back to master reels? 

If this was the case then all recordings studios would be using it, in professional terms it’s a non starter 

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors. What non-MQA process can do this? Record in DXD? Move back to master reels? 

This has been disproven by people, in this thread, and have shown it actually makes it worse. It also adds more noise and ringing. So, in point of fact, MQA does nothing at they say except line their pockets.

[MikeyFresh]

23 minutes ago, GUTB said:

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors

False claim, research it instead of parroting Bob or the press.

 

24 minutes ago, GUTB said:

What non-MQA process can do this?

Do what, more harm? 

 

23 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

If this was the case then all recordings studios would be using it, in professional terms it’s a non starter 

Exactly, and this has been backed by measurements, MQA actually does more harm than good in this regard. 

 

Do your homework GUTB, you prove nothing by regurgitating MQA's bullshit marketing speak.

[MikeyFresh]

16 minutes ago, botrytis said:

This has been disproven by people, in this thread, and have shown it actually makes it worse. It also adds more noise and ringing. So, in point of fact, MQA does nothing at they say except line their pockets.

Well said, either GUTB has poor reading comprehension, or hasn't read much of anything at all, either here or in Archimago's blog which also covered this topic and has never been rebutted in any way.

[GUTB]

7 hours 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

 

 

Listening to this album a bit, I do detect an improved resolution in the MQA version (switching between Master and Hifi in Tidal). Improved separation of notes and associated harmonics in complex passages. To me it sounds very much like a 96kHz recording: a minor improvement in separation and "clarity" (ie, "resolution") over 44.1kHz. I thought I could hear the venue in both versions, but I'm also listening on pretty resolving headphones (TH900). Also I'm sure Fremer is using a much better system than I am. The Mytek Liberty isn't exactly a high-end DAC, just the best one I have to evaluate MQA and MQA-CD. Obviously I did get a linear power supply for it, but it's a cheap AliExpress job.

[GUTB]

10 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Well said, either GUTB has poor reading comprehension, or hasn't read much of anything at all, either here or in Archimago's blog which also covered this topic and has never been rebutted in any way.

I responded to a comment that nothing MQA claims to do can't be done by a non-proprietary format. You and other responded saying that MQA is lying. I suggest that I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

 

As for Archimago's hobby horse, I'll get around to see what he's been up to. Maybe I'll give him a detailed response and see what he comes up with this time.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

I responded to a comment that nothing MQA claims to do can't be done by a non-proprietary format.

You responded by regurgitating BS marketing speak that has been debunked both here and elsewhere. Thats a poor response.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

I suggest that I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

I suggest you are that one, if you had read and comprehended either this thread or Archimago's blog then you would no longer parrot the BS marketing speak or the audio press.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

As for Archimago's hobby horse, I'll get around to see what he's been up to.

"Get around to it"? You are already quite late, his initial piece was written there in January 2015. Since then there have been very detailed follow-up pieces never rebutted by MQA nor the audio press in any way, I believe 14 in all.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Maybe I'll give him a detailed response and see what he comes up with this time.

I guarantee that won't happen. If both Bob Stuart and MQA et al. couldn't provide any rebuttal, nor could the lame stream audio press, there's no way you can either. Thats because there is no credible rebuttal, it doesn't exist, if it did they would have used it already, right?

 

This link is a good place to start your research, it contains links to all of the other pieces except the final two. You might also go back through this very thread using the search function, various very valuable enlightening contributions here from mansr, FredericV, and others.

I'm talking about actual measurements that are repeatable, if they weren't, clearly it would behoove MQA to have raised an official objection, right? But they haven't, and never will.

 

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

I responded to a comment that nothing MQA claims to do can't be done by a non-proprietary format. You and other responded saying that MQA is lying. I suggest that I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

 

As for Archimago's hobby horse, I'll get around to see what he's been up to. Maybe I'll give him a detailed response and see what he comes up with this time.

Yo @GUTB. What "hobby horse" dude?

 

If you're referring to MQA, I haven't posted an article on my blog focused on it in more than a year. At most I might have mentioned it in passing over the last 60 posts.

 

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors. What non-MQA process can do this? Record in DXD? Move back to master reels? 

 

Sure, this is what they claim.

 

But after all these years, can you show me one specific example, or concrete demonstration where the decoded MQA output has clearly improved time-domain performance compared to say the same original recording properly downsampled and dithered to 16/44.1?

 

Surely, this must be easy to do if what they claim is true, right? May I remind everyone that MQA has been out in some form since 2015 with easy accessibility of the data for playback and analysis since 2016. If there truly has been any benefit or merit to these claims, then why has the company not corrected all the doubters in all these years?

 

I think someone mentioned the AES above and how perhaps MQA's presence/publications there had given them some legitimacy. I would not make any assumptions that just because something was presented at the AES means that it's definitely "true". Science is littered with eventually disproven research and hypotheses. I remember Bruno Putzeys being rather perturbed by one of the AES MQA presentations. And Charlie Hansen was livid with MQA's claims (we had some E-mails around this back in the day). These are but a couple of examples of folks who knew better and that there was something obviously fishy from the beginning.

[The Computer Audiophile]

57 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Yo @GUTB. What "hobby horse" dude?

 

If you're referring to MQA, I haven't posted an article on my blog focused on it in more than a year. At most I might have mentioned it in passing over the last 60 posts.

 

 

Sure, this is what they claim.

 

But after all these years, can you show me one specific example, or concrete demonstration where the decoded MQA output has clearly improved time-domain performance compared to say the same original recording properly downsampled and dithered to 16/44.1?

 

Surely, this must be easy to do if what they claim is true, right? May I remind everyone that MQA has been out in some form since 2015 with easy accessibility of the data for playback and analysis since 2016. If there truly has been any benefit or merit to these claims, then why has the company not corrected all the doubters in all these years?

 

I think someone mentioned the AES above and how perhaps MQA's presence/publications there had given them some legitimacy. I would not make any assumptions that just because something was presented at the AES means that it's definitely "true". Science is littered with eventually disproven research and hypotheses. I remember Bruno Putzeys being rather perturbed by one of the AES MQA presentations. And Charlie Hansen was livid with MQA's claims (we had some E-mails around this back in the day). These are but a couple of examples of folks who knew better and that there was something obviously fishy from the beginning.

+ 1000

[botrytis]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

Listening to this album a bit, I do detect an improved resolution in the MQA version (switching between Master and Hifi in Tidal). Improved separation of notes and associated harmonics in complex passages. To me it sounds very much like a 96kHz recording: a minor improvement in separation and "clarity" (ie, "resolution") over 44.1kHz. I thought I could hear the venue in both versions, but I'm also listening on pretty resolving headphones (TH900). Also I'm sure Fremer is using a much better system than I am. The Mytek Liberty isn't exactly a high-end DAC, just the best one I have to evaluate MQA and MQA-CD. Obviously I did get a linear power supply for it, but it's a cheap AliExpress job.

 

AES is not a scientific publication. True scientific publications are 'Peer reviewed'. This means that experts in the field look at the data supplied and determine it is it REAL or not. AES is an advert publication. Meaning blow your own horn w/o anyone looking over your shoulder.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

AES is not a scientific publication. True scientific publications are 'Peer reviewed'. This means that experts in the field look at the data supplied and determine it is it REAL or not. AES is an advert publication. Meaning blow your own horn w/o anyone looking over your shoulder.

This can’t be stressed enough.

 

In fact, the AES as an organization is much more political than its fans would like to believe. 

[botrytis]

(PDF) Production and Characterization of Laccase from Botrytis cinerea 61-34 (researchgate.net)

 

Here is what a REAL Scientific paper looks like. One that was peer reviewed and one that I wrote, I might add. 😁