MQA is Vaporware

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

When he says that "clearly, the pro-MQA and anti-MQA groups have some work to do if they are to convince others of their position" that feels like hitting the nail on the head. 

This sounds - and please excuse the exxxxageration, it is just for clarification & calibration - like the anti-MQA group had started a format war and pro -MQA group chimed in and now defends itself against the format communists in order to keep the free choice of format (1. Audiophile Amendment). Ergo, we are only looking at two different interest groups here. Easy, no?

Following the history of MQA for several years, I haven't seen precisely that happening, and I feel balancing out the different opinions like they both have their valid arguments and just different interests to follow for pleasing the same audience, is plain wrong, imho. This way of accepting narratives lead to these real life examples we have seen in the news reviews this week.

If you (not you personally) keep on making false claims again and again, you may get enough followers, and if these are "outspoken" enough you may control your stakeholders (GOP) by their fear of losing. Looking from Europe to America, I am wondering how quickly the Democrats (they are not even unionists ... they are zentrists by large) have been pushed into an extremist corner by the new beliefs of an important part of the US society. People - in earnest - have started to believe that an election was stolen because the loser has repeated it before, during and after the election he lost, using a media & marketing machine which is powered by and with weapons of modern psychological warfare. Obviously, it is far from impossible to manipulate a great number of people in a short time with strategies usually administered during warfares (->Cambridge Analytica -> Mercer/Koch).

At this point, this strategic policy of MQA marketing annoys me even more than the lossless sound quality.
Perhaps we need to accept that the modern society / marketing in technology nowadays only works like this, however this is not my cup of tea and I may throw up imaging that I need to teach this kind of propaganda strategies to my grandchildren as the outcome of Western Democracy after the Millenium.

@The Computer Audiophile
Chris, if you feel it is to much politics - just delete it ..

[DuckToller]

24 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

That needs to be braided and delivered to the stakeholder groups that lays out future scenarios of what "life if MQA succeeds" will be like - again from different perspectives, notably MQA's and us, the customers.

 

As for the mainstream press, they understandably have relationships to manage and advertising financed enterprises to keep afloat. Is easy to criticise from outside of their domain.

 

I have had the impression that these perspectives under the "new MQA regime" were on delivery throughout the last years, unfortunately people doing this are now branded "extremists". 

Yes, the mainstream press shows great unease for beeing criticised about pleasing this new technolgy (and keeping their hands open). So sad for them.

 

[Fast and Bulbous]

@DuckToller I agree in principle to your perspective, am not sure if Hypernormalisation is a familiar term here, but it describes it pretty well. That, combined with innovation adoption strategy savvy unpicks the approach MQA has and is taking. 

 

Yes there are multiple stakeholders in all of this, fully agree. Darko's point that the pro and anti MQA constituents have work to do is key here for me. WE have work to do. 

 

 

[DuckToller]

52 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

@DuckToller I agree in principle to your perspective, am not sure if Hypernormalisation is a familiar term here, but it describes it pretty well. That, combined with innovation strategy adoption savvy unpicks the approach MQA has and is taking. 

 

Yes there are multiple stakeholders in all of this, fully agree. Darko's point the pro and anti MQA constituents have work to do is key here for me. WE have work to do. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

@Fast and Bulbousgood & interesting point! Thank you for that!

Please don't forget, most of the extremists are working continuosly on that, just tools & organisation are way different to the MQA lobby. Lot's of people do present their knowledge about MQA in different FB audiophile groups, for example. However, these people aren't professional trained and paid marketeers ...  you may compare it to guerilla tactics because differences in ressources are real.
 

Plus, I would assume that most audiophile extremists (I may exclude Peter Veth here) would feel ashamed rambling uninvited about MQA in spaces where the uninformed majority find their pleasures .... Darko otoh connects obviously to all of them, the poles and the vast space in-between. This is why he seems to be a perfect vehicle for the industry. Everything he doesn't name correctly amplifies ...

[KeenObserver]

Involving partisan politics diverts attention from the matter at hand.

Simply stated, MQA benefits MQA and the studios backing it at the expense of the music consumer.

If it was a matter of the music consumer having a choice the prospect of implementing MQA would be benign.

However, the business model of MQA and it's backing studios is that MQA would be THE distribution method for music in the future. The music consumer would have no choice.

MQA has been less than forthcoming right from the beginning.  It has been all smoke and mirrors.  MQA continues to repeat the same points over and over again. Points that have been refuted over and over again.

It is common in marketing today to use "influencers" to flood the internet with wonderful reviews of products. Many of these "reviews" are not even made by humans. They are generated by AI computers.

And having publications like TAS and Stereophile blow their horns for your product  ties in to marketing. Audiophiles should understand that TAS and Stereophile are looking out for the bottom line. They are not looking out for the audiophile.

The methods of swaying and controlling public opinion may be changing in the age of the internet. People no longer buy ink by the barrel. They buy clicks by the million. People have to understand how they are now being manipulated.

The truth is out there.

MQA is no good for the music consumer.

[KeenObserver]

Calling anti MQA supporters as extremists is outright BS.

MQA is trying to ram a system down the throats of the music consumer.

The music consumer has a right and a duty to expose the BS that is MQA.

[mevdinc]

I have been using Qobuz for the last few weeks and its hires streaming does sound much better and there are many albums in hires format including most of my favourite ones.

I am glad I switched from Tidal to Qobuz, I never really used MQA format, as I discovered that it was different from the original and not necessarily better.
I also discovered that it was doing something to the music, certainly a few dB louder, which makes the MQA format sounding bigger with more detail at higher frequencies. This is probably why some people think MQA format sounds better, whereas I found it to be fatiguing.

[R1200CL]

This is really moving in the wrong direction:

https://distrokid.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360059827614-How-I-Can-Send-My-Music-in-TIDAL-Master-Quality-

[KeenObserver]

What BS.

First off, to say that Linn does not support MQA because Linn does not incorporate MQA in their equipment is utter BS.

Linn does not support MQA because they can see what MQA is.  They have taken the ethical high road and have refused to buy into the MQA scheme. I believe that Linn posted their reasoning for not incorporating MQA.

The only time I watch that gentleman's videos is when someone posts them to make a point.  Frankly, they strike me as marketing BS.

A previous posting made the point that the " anti MQA" faction was not getting their point across. Perhaps that is true. There are a number of people that still believe the BS that MQA spews. They repeat it as if it were proven fact rather than debunked market BS. I don't know what the answer to that is except that we need to continue putting the truth out there.

People that care about the future of high quality music need to press the point.  MQA is no good for the music consumer.

 

Cancelling your subscription to Tidal will send a message.  It will tell them that they cannot force this MQA scheme on the music consumer.

Refusing to buy anything associated with MQA will send a message.

Refusing to buy anything from Warner or its subsidiaries will send a message

The bottom line is the bottom line. Money talks. If supporting MQA costs money without any return, it catches people attention.

[MarkusBarkus]

35 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

The only time I watch that gentleman's videos is when someone posts them to make a point.  Frankly, they strike me as marketing BS.

Same here, but I think he made an honest report: he doesn't really like MQA, but many customers expect it. If as many people wrote to say I would buy your gear if only it didn't have MQA stuff, one presumes he/they/others might abandon MQA. 
 

I do think it's possible that MQA may run it's course and fade, but it takes time. These things sometimes generate heat, but they can't burn money indefinitely if the numbers aren't there. 
 

It probably helps a little to keep banging the no-MQA drum, but they currently have the bigger megaphone.

 

39 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

MQA is no good for the music consumer.

...no good for some music consumers. It's just jargon or marketing to many/most, I would say. Most people don't understand it at all, and likely do not even recognize what it does. 

 

43 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Cancelling your subscription to Tidal will send a message. 

I quit Tidal on Christmas day. I added a note in my cancellation screen, but I am not under the impression that someone read that note and thought: "We had better stop this MQA BS...even MarkusBarkus is mad. Get Jay-Z on the line."

[botrytis]

Well, if customers are not educated, the brands need to do it. I mean, the audio press is not doing it besides spreading nonsense (there are exceptions and welcome them).

 

Wehn I bought my first set of Audiophile speakers, I actually called the factory and talked to the designer. Even though he designed the speakers with bi-amp capability, he believed it didn't do anything. He put them in because customers wanted them. He basically talked me out of bi-amping the speakers and just use a good quality amp. We need more of this.

[MarkusBarkus]

The audio mags would be huge, although the online world seems to be making a good run. 
 

I checked that distrokid link above a bit and there were a few pretty snide comments for the owner re: MQA, which I thought was hopeful. Not everyone is on the blue pill.

[KeenObserver]

56 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

I quit Tidal on Christmas day. I added a note in my cancellation screen, but I am not under the impression that someone read that note and thought: "We had better stop this MQA BS...even MarkusBarkus is mad. Get Jay-Z on the line."

 

Looking at the recently posted financials, Tidal is at a critical point in their existence.

They got in bed with MQA because they thought it would keep their head above water.

Perhaps one person cancelling their subscription may not have an effect. But if every music consumer that cared about the future of music cancelled their subscription ( if they had one ) it may reach a tipping point. It might make the point that forcing MQA on the music consumer is not a good financial decision. If Tidal crashed and burned because they were trying to force MQA on the music consumer, it would send a clear message.

Anyone that cares about the future of music should cancel their subscription to Tidal if they have one.  Anyone that cares about the future of music should not subscribe to Tidal. MQA on Tidal is the camels nose in the tent.

People that care for the future of music should avoid Tidal like the plague, which, frankly, it is.

 

Having MQA control the entire future distribution of music is not a good prospect.

[Archimago]

On 2/13/2021 at 11:01 AM, Fast and Bulbous said:

As I say the anti MQA technical arguments have been laid out here over and over. And are, IMHO, irrefutable and completely coherent. If you are an informed audiophile.

 

I don't know how many informed audiophiles hang out at Darko's and would fill out his survey... ;-)

 

Quote

What has not happened, as far as I can see, is a compelling argument for those who either don't understand the technical, or really aren't interested in it. Or can't, or don't care about, hearing the difference. Or what the potential implications are for everyone.  It is not a single perspective issue. There are multiple perspectives: the labels, the musicians, the hardware manufacturers, the streaming services, the end user. And MQA's. The financial, the licensing (including potential smuggling of DRM), the displacement of original masters (potentially for ever).

 

What we need these days is a slick YouTube video production with animations to show people the perspectives and reasons from the "Thanks, but no thanks, MQA." side. :-) @Fast and Bulbous, know anyone who wants to do this?!

 

I think that labelling "anti-MQA" audiophiles as "extremists" is rather silly of Darko. That's like calling Galileo an "extremist" for going against the Church when he's writing books and showing people evidence for his stance on heliocentrism. Why is it "extreme" in any way for audiophiles interested in the best quality sound they can get (which is at the heart of this hobby!) to show that MQA is lying about being completely "lossless", that their "origami" isn't "exact" quality, or that their technique likely even negatively impacts sound quality? That's just being honest and acting in the spirit of the hobby, isn't it?!

 

As far as I can tell, the only people trying to sell an ideology is MQA, to have us worship at the "Church of The Immaculate Origami" or the "Temple of The Righteous Deblur". As silly as that might seem, I think rational people are forced to see it this way since MQA has no factual rebuttals to provide in the face of criticisms other than "have faith in us".

 

Darko is a salesman. He believes whatever the companies tell him to believe, be it expensive cables or promoting MQA. Of course, other audio magazines are like this as well...

 

Quote

That needs to be braided and delivered to the stakeholder groups that lays out future scenarios of what "life if MQA succeeds" will be like - again from different perspectives, notably MQA's and us, the customers.

 

As for the mainstream press, they understandably have relationships to manage and advertising financed enterprises to keep afloat. Is easy to criticise from outside of their domain.

 

For me, unless and until we build compelling arguments that takes the above into full account, we will likely be seen as techies arguing about stuff that is important to us but not to the rump of Darko's survey participants. And maybe we should bear in mind that Darko's base is relatively well informed - otherwise it would not be Darko's base, i.e. they would not know of Darko and the audiophile community. Which makes the situation with the wider public even less informed. 

 

I actually am not sure if Darko's base on the whole is well informed in the technical sense - they might be informed about brands and products. I've watched some of his videos and the amount of factual information beyond showing the device I/O ports, repeating advertising specs, general features, etc. isn't that deep. His level of critical thinking around what he's selling likewise is not complex. He puts doorstops on each of his boxes for goodness sakes and seems to respect the ramblings of Michael Lavorgna as representative of some kind of truth is disturbing (at least to me). I suspect the readers/viewers who are more critical probably left testy messages on his website and YouTube videos which is why he has shut the comments down over the years.

 

The fact that >10% were "extreme" enough to say "Over my dead body" on MQA is pretty good I think since the poll only represents those who subscribe to his YouTube channel. Let's not forget that poll results also reflect the wording used... Personally, if I paid money and streamed Tidal playing background music, I could just as easily choose "Sometimes (but not always)" and be part of that 34% even though I think MQA totally sucks! Sometimes one might be forced to stream MQA because of the lack of choice (which again is part of the concern!).

 

As much as I don't think MQA is an appropriate data format for audiophiles (like how I would dissuade audiophiles from ripping CDs to MP3), whether Burno Mars is streamed as MQA or hi-res lossless or 16/44.1 or MP3 doesn't matter to me because the production isn't that good to need the resolution anyways.

 

There are better poll questions to ask to determine really how many "MQA faithful" there are out there. I bet the number of audiophiles who know about MQA and still want MQA are low in the wild.

 

[KeenObserver]

There are people that are intellectually lazy.  They don't have the ability and self discipline to apply logic and scientific principles to their decisions. They hear things over and over again and repeat them as gospel. They believe it makes them sound knowledgeable.  This is marketing.  This is what MQA is doing.

There are "reviewers" and bloggers that repeat the marketing propaganda and pose themselves as experts. The intellectually lazy follow them because it is easier than actually thinking it out for themselves.  They are easily led.

If MQA keeps putting out the same BS over and over again there will be those that follow them over the cliff.

[KeenObserver]

The thought occurred to me that the MQA faithful that follow them over the cliff have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

The metaphor is lost on them.

[KeenObserver]

There is a whole mass of people that don't understand the full implications of implementing MQA.

[MikeyFresh]

46 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

There is a whole mass of people that don't understand the full implications of implementing MQA.

That above all else is what needs to be communicated to the masses, if at all possible. It's not rocket science in that regard, doesn't need to be highly technical for those implications to be laid bare.

[ShawnC]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

What we need these days is a slick YouTube video production with animations to show people the perspectives and reasons from the "Thanks, but no thanks, MQA." side. :-) @Fast and Bulbous, know anyone who wants to do this?!

3Blue1Brown is a great YouTube channel for explaining math problems with animation.  But I doubt they'd be interested in this, unless their an audiophile😉

 

 https://www.youtube.com/c/3blue1brown/about, this is their about page on YouTube.

https://www.3blue1brown.com/

[Fast and Bulbous]

The PS audio video... If credibility is important then knowing the A is for Authenticated not Assured would seem to be important. And that Qobuz do not use MQA - as far as I know.

 

Had the "customers want it" dialogue with Charley H and Neil - there was no budging from Charley's well informed position and Neil has maintained that integrity ever since. That kind of thing is what we need. Maybe there is energy there?

 

As for a Youtube video... the only video work I have done is for basic animations for use in consulting assigments. Nothing fancy, not slick, but OK. I have worked with graphic artists and video producers. And done voice over work and script preparation. Putting something together would need to be a team effort I feel - as there are many perspectives to incorporate. The objective would be for it to go viral.

 

Darko's comments about extremist was about extremist positions I think? And at each end of the distribution curve the positions are extreme: either "there is nothing good about MQA, at all, to "there is nothing bad about MQA, at all". Darko points out that each position has work to do. And time is moving along. MQA has some serious money behind it, a significant team, labels, hardware manufacturers, streaming with their investors, much of the press, strategy and comms advice that we may deride, but the path they are on is not born of a whim. It is the result of some serious thinking about how to sell this so that it becomes part of the standard infrastructure. Every move and goal is towards that end. Nothing else will do - otherwise it gets sidelined to a niche thing. Tech is one thing, relationships that MQA have and the vested interests they serve are something else. Some are explicit, some are not.

 

Tonight I am doing a webinar on technology/innovation adoption/diffusion strategy. Have not done one for a while. In prepping for it I looked afresh at MQA through that lens. Yep, it stacks up. Is how technically inferior innovations have won their space and beaten lesser tech. Often the best tech does not win, is a repeating pattern.

 

Do we know where and who are the other folks who are clear about the danger / deceit of MQA?

 

"If not now then when...." comes to mind.

 

 

 

[KeenObserver]

2 hours ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

The PS audio video... If credibility is important then knowing the A is for Authenticated not Assured would seem to be important. And that Qobuz do not use MQA - as far as I know.

 

Had the "customers want it" dialogue with Charley H and Neil - there was no budging from Charley's well informed position and Neil has maintained that integrity ever since. That kind of thing is what we need. Maybe there is energy there?

 

As for a Youtube video... the only video work I have done is for basic animations for use in consulting assigments. Nothing fancy, not slick, but OK. I have worked with graphic artists and video producers. And done voice over work and script preparation. Putting something together would need to be a team effort I feel - as there are many perspectives to incorporate. The objective would be for it to go viral.

 

Darko's comments about extremist was about extremist positions I think? And at each end of the distribution curve the positions are extreme: either "there is nothing good about MQA, at all, to "there is nothing bad about MQA, at all". Darko points out that each position has work to do. And time is moving along. MQA has some serious money behind it, a significant team, labels, hardware manufacturers, streaming with their investors, much of the press, strategy and comms advice that we may deride, but the path they are on is not born of a whim. It is the result of some serious thinking about how to sell this so that it becomes part of the standard infrastructure. Every move and goal is towards that end. Nothing else will do - otherwise it gets sidelined to a niche thing. Tech is one thing, relationships that MQA have and the vested interests they serve are something else. Some are explicit, some are not.

 

Tonight I am doing a webinar on technology/innovation adoption/diffusion strategy. Have not done one for a while. In prepping for it I looked afresh at MQA through that lens. Yep, it stacks up. Is how technically inferior innovations have won their space and beaten lesser tech. Often the best tech does not win, is a repeating pattern.

 

Do we know where and who are the other folks who are clear about the danger / deceit of MQA?

 

"If not now then when...." comes to mind.

 

 

 

 

A well thought out post. It points to the fact that there is substantial financial backing behind MQA and all the parties involved are intent on ramming this thing through. The South African financial backers and the studios have a history of doing what they need to to to further their ends, ethical considerations being of little importance.

As I said before, the bottom line is the bottom line. It would have to be financially bad for them to drop their plans to implement MQA. Look at what the South African billionaires did to acquire their billions.  Look at the past histories of the studios. The only way these people are going to reverse course is if the public relations effect costs them money. Are the music consumers that are being screwed by MQA rejecting it to the point that it is costing the studios?

Look at what happened when Sony implemented their root kit fiasco. When it was exposed Sony took a financial hit.

The thing with the Sony root kit fiasco is that it provoked widespread disdain.

With TAS and Stereophile and others prostituting themselves for MQA, it is difficult to educate the music consumer as to the full implications of implementing MQA.

Having a powerful public relations program is effective. Yellow journalism provoked the Spanish-American War.

[The Computer Audiophile]

57 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

The only way these people are going to reverse course is if the public relations effect costs them money.

This is 100% true. 

 

If the labels thought piracy would return because of MQA, they'd drop it in an instant. Piracy scares the hell out of them. 

 

If the labels thought they'd get bad PR because of MQA, they'd drop it in an instant. 

 

The success or failure of MQA has nothing to do with technology or music and everything to do with money. 

[bambadoo]

Do they pay extra if it is in MQA ? 😇 (Since MQA is supposed to be the artists best friend....)

https://themlc.com/press/mechanical-licensing-collective-receives-424-million-historical-unmatched-royalties-digital

 

 

 

 

[botrytis]

 

I think as Chris has stated, that if MQA becomes a standard, people will either pirate or not BUY ANY NEW MUSIC, only used records and CDs.

 

The Recording Industry wants total control. That is all they have ever wanted.

[DuckToller]

7 hours ago, bambadoo said:

Do they pay extra if it is in MQA ? 😇 (Since MQA is supposed to be the artists best friend....)

https://themlc.com/press/mechanical-licensing-collective-receives-424-million-historical-unmatched-royalties-digital

 

If my reading skills are ok, these 424 millions are intended for the songwriters and publishing right holders, who aren't typically equal "the artists" performing the art.
Interesting part is the fact, that these are payments that are considered "as one of the conditions of eligibility for a specified limitation on liability for prior infringements" and will be controlled through the data supplied for distribution.
If I am not mistaken, the table provided with the document, is an indicator for the greatest infringements over the past (naturally led by the companies having the biggest customer base & the longest history mixed up with the companies having the worst payment behaviour). A liability limiting factor could be the problem to identify the correct rightsholder and arranging the transfer.

Looking at Tidal vs Qobuz, I would see some points to note:
A) According to Wikipedia "Tidal claims to pay the highest percentage of royalties to music artists and songwriters within the music streaming market."
B) Tidal has been accused of widely inflating subscriber numbers (also Wikipedia, citing TheVerge.com)
C) Qobuz "infringe" payment is the lowest of all "important" streaming services, Tidals payment however, even the company may have been around 3.5 times longer than Qobuz (2015 vs 05/2019), is at factor 65 compared to the 106k $ from Qobuz, assembled during a period of 22 month.

Taking into account factual information like A),B) and C), my tiny brain may conclude that A) can only be half the truth, because the royalities paid to songwriters have been obviously amassed in the past. No information about the artist gratifications were given, although A) is evidently correct when it comes to royalties paid to Beyonce and Kayne West.

Or is it MQA that inflated these infringments ???