MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

I find it incredible that people actually believe that load of crap.  But then, half the people are below MEDIAN intelligence.

As long as they don't follow him to Guyana.

[firedog]

48 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

It seems PV is firing on all cylinders again on the Roon Community Site 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/comparison-of-pcm-and-mqa/149787/435

The amazing thing about him is he just regurgitates MQA spiel, and then accuses others of not understanding.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

and then accuses others of not understanding.

This is also MQA spiel. On the phone calls with me, every time Bob would say Mans and Jussi didn’t know what they were talking about, they were using high school engineering. 

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

It seems PV is firing on all cylinders again on the Roon Community Site 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/comparison-of-pcm-and-mqa/149787/435

If you look PV's linkedin profile and then at his employers website, you may come to the conclusion that they are looking for a replacement for his position ... perhaps he was transformed into full-time MQA-Evangelist ?
According to SHMF, Mr. Veth had been blamed for his MQA support in a call to his employer, when he was just three years into MQA support. Now he seems to be  in his sixth year and more present than ever.
Nevermind that social media exposition is quite time consuming.

[KeenObserver]

If I was in the music business and a sound engineer was shilling for MQA, under no circumstances whatsoever would I let that engineer anywhere near my music.

If a music engineer is in such desperate straits that they are shilling for MQA, that is not someone you want anywhere near your music.

 

MQA is a pox on the music consumer and is a pox on the future of quality music.

 

It is becoming increasingly clear that the closer we come to reproducing music perfectly, the more the majors do not want us to have perfect music.

[charlesphoto]

On 4/2/2021 at 7:34 PM, ARQuint said:

 

Cookie Marenco is a respected engineer and producer with 5 Grammy nominations. She has recorded Brad Mehldau, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, and Mary Chapin Carpenter and uses her real name. It's highly doubtful that "Ishmael Slapowitz" has any qualifications as an audio professional and has exactly one criterion for who is worthy in the field and who isn't. Most, me included, recognize that Slapowitz gets his jollies by riling people up and is here for his entertainment value. But I also feel it doesn't reflect well on AS for an especially conscientious and generous member of our industry like Marenco to be subject to preadolescent name-calling.

 

It also doesn't help the case of more thoughtful critics of MQA.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

Plenty of so called 'respected' individuals that have bought into another version of Q as well.... humans of all stripes and colors are easily manipulated in many ways if sufficiently sold a bill of goods by charlatans. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

It would absolutely be terrible if people started using this as the MQA logo. 

 

[Confused]

In fairness to Cookie Marenco and & Blue Coast records, it does say this on their website:

 

To compare an MQA encoded file that was originally recorded to DSD256 would be like comparing a $2000 Mytek DSD DAC to a $25,000 DSD DAC from Playback Designs.  I love them both when I don't compare them. Many people can't hear a difference.

 

Personally I look at this a little differently.  If a relatively small record label is aware that there is demand for MQA, or that a particular streaming service will only deal with them if they provide MQA files, then it is good business sense for them to offer MQA.  Note that Blue Coast is offering MQA as an option, DSD, FLAC and WAV are also offered.

 

Furthermore, they also offer a free download in different file formats so you can try and hear for yourself:

 

To quote:

 

 

If you want to compare for yourself, we now include an MQA file along with the 9 other files in our free test download located here.

https://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

Better than guessing or reading, listen for yourself.

 

All of this seems reasonable to me.  (As an aside, the above linked free download might offer a relatively unusual opportunity to compare MQA files with other formats, free of any MQA EQ manipulation or similar.  I might be wrong, but I suspect these examples will be identical, other than the format differences.  Can anyone confirm this, or otherwise?)

 

The issue as I see it is a different one.  Labels like Blue Coast would not be bothering with MQA if there was not a demand for it.  So the issue is not with Blue Coast doing what they have to do from a business perspective, the issue is that there is demand for MQA.

 

I see this more as a failure of those of see MQA for what it really is not getting the message out.  The message is clear enough on this thread, but is the message reaching the big bad world out there?  It would appear not I think.

[Confused]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I would absolutely be terrible if people started using this as the MQA logo. 

 

Oi!  MQA is British.  (or arguably English)

 

You guys can't be held responsible for everything.

[Cebolla]

Crikey, hope you're not suggesting that the Q should be in Union Jack colours - I'm just about to tuck into my tea here!  

[The Computer Audiophile]

31 minutes ago, Confused said:

In fairness to Cookie Marenco and & Blue Coast records, it does say this on their website:

 

To compare an MQA encoded file that was originally recorded to DSD256 would be like comparing a $2000 Mytek DSD DAC to a $25,000 DSD DAC from Playback Designs.  I love them both when I don't compare them. Many people can't hear a difference.

 

Personally I look at this a little differently.  If a relatively small record label is aware that there is demand for MQA, or that a particular streaming service will only deal with them if they provide MQA files, then it is good business sense for them to offer MQA.  Note that Blue Coast is offering MQA as an option, DSD, FLAC and WAV are also offered.

 

Furthermore, they also offer a free download in different file formats so you can try and hear for yourself:

 

To quote:

 

 

If you want to compare for yourself, we now include an MQA file along with the 9 other files in our free test download located here.

https://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

Better than guessing or reading, listen for yourself.

 

All of this seems reasonable to me.  (As an aside, the above linked free download might offer a relatively unusual opportunity to compare MQA files with other formats, free of any MQA EQ manipulation or similar.  I might be wrong, but I suspect these examples will be identical, other than the format differences.  Can anyone confirm this, or otherwise?)

 

The issue as I see it is a different one.  Labels like Blue Coast would not be bothering with MQA if there was not a demand for it.  So the issue is not with Blue Coast doing what they have to do from a business perspective, the issue is that there is demand for MQA.

 

I see this more as a failure of those of see MQA for what it really is not getting the message out.  The message is clear enough on this thread, but is the message reaching the big bad world out there?  It would appear not I think.

We should also keep in mind these are likely white gloved MQA, not batch processed. 

[Confused]

25 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

Crikey, hope you're not suggesting that the Q should be in Union Jack colours - I'm just about to tuck into my tea here!  

My apologies for that one. 🙂

 

On reflection, the more “anonymous” looking US version is far more suitable.

[StephenJK]

48 minutes ago, Confused said:

In fairness to Cookie Marenco and & Blue Coast records, it does say this on their website:

 

To compare an MQA encoded file that was originally recorded to DSD256 would be like comparing a $2000 Mytek DSD DAC to a $25,000 DSD DAC from Playback Designs.  I love them both when I don't compare them. Many people can't hear a difference.

 

Personally I look at this a little differently.  If a relatively small record label is aware that there is demand for MQA, or that a particular streaming service will only deal with them if they provide MQA files, then it is good business sense for them to offer MQA.  Note that Blue Coast is offering MQA as an option, DSD, FLAC and WAV are also offered.

 

Furthermore, they also offer a free download in different file formats so you can try and hear for yourself:

 

To quote:

 

 

If you want to compare for yourself, we now include an MQA file along with the 9 other files in our free test download located here.

https://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

Better than guessing or reading, listen for yourself.

 

All of this seems reasonable to me.  (As an aside, the above linked free download might offer a relatively unusual opportunity to compare MQA files with other formats, free of any MQA EQ manipulation or similar.  I might be wrong, but I suspect these examples will be identical, other than the format differences.  Can anyone confirm this, or otherwise?)

 

The issue as I see it is a different one.  Labels like Blue Coast would not be bothering with MQA if there was not a demand for it.  So the issue is not with Blue Coast doing what they have to do from a business perspective, the issue is that there is demand for MQA.

 

I see this more as a failure of those of see MQA for what it really is not getting the message out.  The message is clear enough on this thread, but is the message reaching the big bad world out there?  It would appear not I think.

Would you not need MQA compatible hardware to be able to play the MQA sample?  If you bought hardware that was compatible, could there be the inclination for a slight bias?

[Confused]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We should also keep in mind these are likely white gloved MQA, not batch processed. 

So you are thinking that very possibly they have actually been “tweaked” by MQA?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Confused said:

So you are thinking that very possibly they have actually been “tweaked” by MQA?

My guess is they’ve been converted using the utmost care and any options in the process that make it sound better we’re likely used. What those options are, are unknown to me. 

[danadam]

I always thought that "white glove" processing meant:

1. carefully prepare a new master (in good old PCM, mind you)
2. encode it in MQA, the usual way
3. release to public only the encoded version and keep PCM master in safe

which would not entirely apply in case of BC because, presumably, the master they release in FLAC/DSD is already a carefully prepared master.

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, danadam said:

I always thought that "white glove" processing meant:

1. carefully prepare a new master (in good old PCM, mind you)
2. encode it in MQA, the usual way
3. release to public only the encoded version and keep PCM master in safe

which would not entirely apply in case of BC because, presumably, the master they release in FLAC/DSD is already a carefully prepared master.

 

Well, just ask Neil Young if that was done with his masters, on Tidal. If it was, then why did he pull his music?

 

It is just more hand waving and marketing nonsense.

[Confused]

21 minutes ago, danadam said:

I always thought that "white glove" processing meant:

1. carefully prepare a new master (in good old PCM, mind you)
2. encode it in MQA, the usual way
3. release to public only the encoded version and keep PCM master in safe

which would not entirely apply in case of BC because, presumably, the master they release in FLAC/DSD is already a carefully prepared master.

The above is exactly what I was thinking in my earlier post.  Reading the comments of others, I am now not so sure.  I guess we will never know for sure.

 

I might try the Blue Coast sample files out of pure curiosity.  In the past I tried comparing MQA versus PCM with some of the 2L sample files and found not a lot of difference, so it might tell me something if the Blue Coast samples did somehow sound radically different.

[DuckToller]

I would be bewildered if the BC MQA files would sound "better" than their original masters,
in my view that would destroy CM's business model ...

[Confused]

1 hour ago, StephenJK said:

Would you not need MQA compatible hardware to be able to play the MQA sample?  If you bought hardware that was compatible, could there be the inclination for a slight bias?

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing, that is for sure.

[yahooboy]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I would absolutely be terrible if people started using this as the MQA logo. 

 

Isn't it a bit harsh to reference Qanon ?😁

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, yahooboy said:

Isn't it a bit harsh to reference Qanon ?😁

Most humor stems from pain. 

[FredericV]

8 hours ago, UkPhil said:

It seems PV is firing on all cylinders again on the Roon Community Site 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/comparison-of-pcm-and-mqa/149787/435

For sure PV will never answer this question:

 

Quote

If MQA is so great and superior sounding, how come no label is using it as an archive format, only as a marketing format?

 

[Don Hills]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My guess is they’ve been converted using the utmost care and any options in the process that make it sound better we’re likely used. What those options are, are unknown to me. 

 

Has anyone played any of the tracks? Are they blue light or green light?

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

But then, half the people are below MEDIAN intelligence.

 

That will NEVER change! 😀