MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

The problem was, for every Archimago, there were 3 or 4 Brinkmanships, whose unsubstantial two-sentence zingers were posted with far greater frequency.

 

No there weren't, and even if there were, what exact "problem" would that create for MQA (or even Stereophile for that matter) in actually stepping up to the plate and addressing the real issues at hand, rather than weakly deflecting repeatedly under the guise of "incivility"? You are once again using a very tired and ineffective approach here Andy, neither MQA, nor Stereophile is the victim you seek to portray them as being.

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I can't, of course, say this with any certainty, but MQA, Inc. might have engaged with our anonymous friend had the air not been poisoned with so much vitriol and snarkiness—remember, Bob Stuart himself answered a slew of questions on this site before that.

 

I can say with certainty MQA would not under any circumstance have engaged, and it's easy to see why. If you have a real technology, that has real technical merit and offers real value to consumers and artists, then you'd be willing to answer any questions, face any/all criticisms, and ultimately prevail, and you'd do so at all costs to uphold your good name, and to preserve and move forward all of the work that had already been done. You wouldn't just vanish with nary an answer to any challenge, would you?

 

Unless you got nuthin', in which case you withdraw, pointing a finger at your detractors in a classic attempt at "I am the real victim here". MQA showed their hand right there, poor show, really very weak. Bob didn't answer shit, you made that up, and then he went completely dark while lackeys such as TAS and Stereophile did his bidding. I see that you still are, just can't resist that urge to play the anonymous card again there, gotta go to that well one more time when otherwise you've got nuthin'.

 

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

And then came the disgraceful treatment of Chris at RMAF 2018 and the door was forever slammed shut.

 

Actually I'd bet that door is still wide open, but since MQA has nuthin', they need to act like it's shut, and so do you.

 

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

My personal emphasis on "civility" irked some folks on this thread and was even viewed by a few as a kind of diversionary tactic. It's not.

 

It is a diversionary tactic, and it is viewed as such by far more than just the "few" you suggest. The vast majority here and elsewhere see it for exactly what it is, a weak attempt to change the narrative and suggest "the real problem here " isn't MQA at all. Can't defend yourself? Just change the topic.

 

You are right about one thing, MQA as a topic and product will continue to recede, and eventually it will be gone. It is not viable, the market has spoken, both TAS, and Stereophile, as well as various MQA parrot cheerleading manufacturers will rightly end up worse for the wear, their reputations now tattered.

 

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Mr Fresh, have we not been through this cycle 15 times before with AQ?

 

The same rinse and repeat nonsense about civility blah blah blah.

 

Yes we most certainly have been, AR is seemingly under the erroneous impression that everyone here has a very short memory.

 

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I believe your response here is the most devastating I have seen and should put an end to this.

 

It probably won't given the history/pattern, however maybe the next step is to just put AR on the ignored members list. I'd love it if that happened en masse, he is not a voice of authority, nor is he the influencer that both he himself and the MQA cadre fancies him to be.

 

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Mr, Quint talks about alternate facts but continues to repeat the absurd canard that MQA would have "engaged" with folks if there was toast and tea and mints on the table. Pure fiction.

 

That is a fantasy, and one he is hoping CC among others buys into, hence the civility crusade.

 

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Mr. Quint has not once, not even ONE time answered for his magazine and his colleagues coverage of MQA.

 

No he hasn't, but he sticks to the basic playbook with remarkable predictability.

 

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

P.S. there were folks who did not "like" CD when it first arrived but it's benefits were clear, and the market agreed, it had a pretty good 30 year run.

 

Even if I and other folks did not "like" MQA and it clearly solved technical issues and had undisputed benefits, then it would not matter what detractors think....and this thread would not even exist. But it does.

 

Well said, that's both an interesting analogy, and a sign of things not to come for MQA... no traction yet with anything but tiny Tidal does not bode well at all, market acceptance has not happened despite the (free?) trade press blitz they have been the recipient of.

 

I guess only a very small fraction of the magazine readers (and as well the hi-fi gear manufacturers) were effectively snookered.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

He made a hobby out of understanding the technology! 

 

Impressive!

 

3 hours ago, FredericV said:

His backstory does not does not add up.

 

No not at all, but evidently he feels there are plenty of Facebook "followers" who can be persuaded otherwise. He's a veritable Facebook superstar in his own mind, a real "influencer".

[MikeyFresh]

34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The part that baffles me, is what’s in it for him and the other MQA “influencers?”

 

Something more than just a spare time "hobby". I offer no proof other than common sense logic.

[MikeyFresh]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I won't waste my time talking to you, as we clearly have no common understanding of how business operate and you are unwilling to admit that businesses make decisions that will keep the lights on. 

 

I'm not quite sure how you would know specifics about any given businesses ability to keep the lights on, or their direct attempt to do so by implementing MQA.

 

Regardless, I have never been a fan of any equipment manufacturer's inclusion of any technology or feature, merely to tick a box in their marketing, or worse yet to try to take advantage of what they see as a media blitz surrounding that tech or feature.

 

With regard to MQA adoption, I believe that is exactly what happened, and I join others in shedding no tears or having the slightest bit of sympathy for those firms as corporate entities, though it would be a shame if their employees ultimately suffered due to bad bets made by the top brass. Was it really a bad bet? Did they shift a few more units initially due to inclusion of MQA? Are they still doing so today? Only they know.

 

But I smell a rat with the story of "we've had huge customer demand/requests for MQA", I think that's total BS and a gross overstatement. Rather, they sought to take advantage of the huge media blitz surrounding MQA, a bunch of free advertising for their products if they were to include that feature. Smart business? Perhaps, but I for one sincerely hope that it wasn't.

 

We've had this topic arise before in this thread, and I wasn't alone then nor now in saying I'll freakin' boycott any company producing units that are MQA compatible, and they will only get the least bit of reconsideration for my consumer spending when they have completely abandoned MQA. There is no I'm right your wrong there, that's just my particular stance, and that of other's too if previous posts on this topic are any indication.

 

Some of us have always viewed MQA as a real threat, threat to consumers, threat to artists, etc... for various different reasons. Unfortunately those companies adopting MQA can be seen as aiding and abetting, and so I can't root for them at all, even if it means they then have to turn the lights off.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, randyhat said:

Whether hatred, truth, or just an casual obsession to occupy your time.  Fight on warrior!  781 pages and we have not yet even begun to fight.

 

SUCH clever sarcasm, what a valuable addition to the thread!

[MikeyFresh]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’ve always talked like there is other action but refused to say what it is. It’s time to show your cards. Pics our it isn’t happening. 

 

I disagree Chris, this isn't a court of law and he owes no definitive proof of anything. I for one don't find his posts outlandish or far fetched, and while I respect that your opinion may differ, it's just that, an opinion.

 

To put that another way, if one were demanding proof, it could easily be a demand for proof to the contrary, right? So do you have some sort of proof that contradicts the OP?

[MikeyFresh]

9 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

So many claims and not an ounce of evidence for how many years?

 

Evidence is something used in a court of law. In an online forum such as this, no such burden of proof is required, either take what he says at face value or leave it, but the idea that evidence need be submitted, otherwise it isn't true, is a bridge too far.

 

Chris has set a poor example here in attacking the messenger, how many other posts are simply ignored? Why would the OP of this thread suddenly need to provide "proof"?

 

Why wouldn't you or anyone else that has seemingly tired of the OP's style just put him on your member ignore list? That would seem to be a better course of action than to make demands of proof else that person is a liar, no?

[MikeyFresh]

29 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

@KeenObserver here is some some more BS for you, as requested:

 

https://hifitrends.com/2020/04/22/these-innovative-hd-concert-videos-with-hi-res-mqa-audio-will-blow-your-mind/

 

 

Wow, what a load of crap that is. The author does describe him/herself as a "big fan" of MQA, so that at least provides some context. He fails to consider how that stream might sound in 16/48 PCM, for example.

 

But WAIT... the author's signature suggests he is an anonymous poster! Would that not draw the ire of Bob Stuart and various others who have used the anonymous identity argument ad nauseam previously in vain attempts to discredit various posts on this thread and elsewhere?

 

Exactly who is Paul Cash and what are his credentials? How would we know he isn't just a product shilling affiliate marketing program whore? Is Hi-Fi Trends a legitimate outlet of unbiased information, or is it an online informercial? Only The Shadow knows.

 

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

I thought it interesting that the revamped HDtracks site is now powered by OraSteam. Could we one day potentially be looking at a redux of the still born HDmusicStream, that evidently is currently the subject of litigation between 7digital and the Cheskys?

 

Will anyone other than the record labels make streaming profitable in the current landscape? Have the record labels pursued/demanded short term profits under the current model at the expense of real sustainability?

[MikeyFresh]

36 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Like it or not, MQA is a part of this industry. TAS accepts their announcements without fear or favor, as we do everyone else's.

 

The latter, I do not like or accept that MQA has any place in this industry. We've been through all of the reasons why that stance is valid, I won't repeat them for you as they are well known and documented.

 

So TAS doesn't discriminate whatsoever with regard to whose press releases are published? 

 

The part in the release about "MQA makes video sound better because of its unique deblurring process" is both comical and bullshit at the very same time, that's the kind of thing TAS is OK with regurgitating ad nauseam? Upsampling with leaky MP filters is not unique, nor is it deblurring anything, no matter how many times TAS repeats it, in press releases, reviews, or otherwise. Yes that's an ethical lapse.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, jma2 said:

The equipment vendors might have chosen MQA as "another" option to differentiate themselves from the rest at the time of the hype or not to miss the hype... they may already regret it eventually (or am I naive?).

 

Agreed, and I don't think you are naive. My hope is that with the next cycle of product design and production, we'll quietly start to see this buzzword feature dropped. High-end brands typically don't have a new model every year or two, very often it is 5 or more years between the introduction of new models, a longer new product development cycle than for regular consumer electronics.

 

I expect to see less adoption among these high-end brands with the next new product cycle, with the realization that MQA long ago jumped the shark, despite what the industry rags might still be clinging to as news worthy of their promotion. But for every brand that drops it, there might be news ones willing to give it a go in hopes of boosting sales, which is why it remains important to fly the flag for the right cause as @jma2 described above.

 

I still salute the likes of Linn, Benchmark, and EXOGAL, among others, for not bending to pressure or sacrificing their core values in engineering, or their faith in the ability to offer consumers REAL value, and not just chase a few extra greenbacks. Evidently they are not just in the business of shifting a few units in any way possible. Not a simple decision to make, even if you know you are doing the right thing.

[MikeyFresh]

10 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

 Or just trolling/moderating? 

 

Clearly it's a lame attempt at both.

[MikeyFresh]

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

So publishing a press release from MQA, Ltd. Is an ethical lapse? I think you're on the proverbial slippery slope here. How about these manufacturer announcements regarding other products that some righteous souls characterize as "snake oil"? Also ethical lapses?

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/yg-acoustics-introduces-first-audio-rack-series/

 

 

 

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/wireworld-introduces-second-generation-flat-ethernet-cables/

 

 

 

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audience-next-generation-powerchord-models-the-new-au24-sx-au24-se-i-and-se-i-ac-power-cords/

 

 

 

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/melco-launces-new-s100-data-switch/

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, these are clearly identified as "press releases". TAS has actually reviewed—favorably—expensive USB cables, power cords, equipment footers, and a whole bunch of stuff developed by Ted Denney. More fraudulence? Will selling, reviewing, or even dispassionately announcing the existence of any tweaky accessory that hasn't been thoroughly vetted with measurements and DBT in an Archimago-approved fashion become evidence of moral failing?

 

If you feel that way, there are forums out there that will make you feel right at home.

You are, of course, entitled to express your opinions regarding the technical and sonic merits of MQA, and even the (IMO) over-the-top concern that it imperils the future of our recorded legacy. You should, if you truly feel that this technology represents an existential threat to our hobby. But sometimes, it can appear that MQA has been singled out for "special treatment" for reasons that go beyond noble consumer advocacy.

Andy Quint

 

 

 

Simply no, and that's both a bridge too far, and illustrates yet another blatant deflection attempt, you're now seeking to attach the technical and moral debunking of MQA to that of various other completely unrelated products.

 

What makes you think for one second that I personally disavow any and all product claims not backed by a slew of measurements, or DBT, or in your own words, "Arichimago-approved"?

 

These other forums that you suggest I might be better served by, I have never registered at nor even once posted there under any screen name at all, at the likes of ASR, or Hydrogen Audio, just to name two.

 

There is zero evidence to support your wild conjecture, and for the record, I'm no staunch objectivist whatsoever. DBT or it doesn't exist my ASS.

 

However, if you are deflecting from the reality of pathetic TAS support of all things MQA, and it's clearly debunked marketing-speak bullshit that TAS has so readily supported and regurgitated, then yes, I submit that is evidence of a moral failing, and one that might cause HP to literally turn over in his grave if such a thing were possible, given TAS's origin and pedigree.

 

I've got no axe to grind against makers of equipment footers, power cords, or any other "tweaky accessory", as you put it. Not only do I personally own such products and like them, but they have exactly nothing to do with any blatant cash grab attempt at the end-to-end domination of music distribution, and can very easily be categorized broadly to consumers as caveat emptor. Those using a quality local dealer for trial of such products, or still others buying with a money back guarantee need not worry at all, they can easily draw their own conclussions.

 

On the other hand, if MQA were to achieve the market dominance and "one format for all" that both MQA themselves have admitted is a goal, and that the record labels obviously also covet, complete with stealth DRM and the so-called "Crown Jewels" safely locked away again (assuming they did not actually burn down in more than one mysterious master tape storage facility fire that are the subject of ongoing litigation), then yes Andrew, I vehemently oppose MQA on all grounds, including that of TAS's ongoing shill program evidenced by review comments, "press releases", and your own fake news comments in this thread. Please say hi to Lee for us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Now pointing out inconsistencies in their attitudes towards different technologies with a disputed science/engineering basis is "deflection." It's perhaps a useful short-term debate strategy but ultimately one that doesn't hold water.

 

Exactly, because it is a deflection, and my point most certainly holds water. I see you sailed right past the part about the product examples you cited as having no actual relevance to MQA or the threat to consumers and artists that it clearly presents. The one bears no resemblance to the other, so the deflection is therefore clear and not at all a short term debate strategy. You cited something that has no bearing or resemblance to MQA, merely to create the illusion they are somehow similar. They are not, and so that's not even then an MQA debate, you attempted to shift focus off of MQA and onto various other unrelated products and brands.

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

A year ago in this thread, the most incensed of the anti-MQA folks were calling requests for civility a "deflection".

 

Thats because it was a deflection, evidently the only response that MQA or its supporters could muster. You have zero response to the very detailed technical debunking presented here and elsewhere, so it became a game of shoot the messenger, incivility claims, and non-acceptance of anonymity. Deflect, shift the topic, dodge the real issue.

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

A Big Lie, by the way, is that TAS has had all that much to say about MQA for a couple of years—there hasn't been much since Robert's articles of 2016/2017 when the technology was breaking into general audiophile consciousness. Mostly, it's company press releases online.

 

On this we agree, but that's no feather in your cap. RH's over the top absurd commentary still needs a full retraction, in print. Nothing short of that can possibly be defended, or help to restore the reputation and credibility of the publication. Just because there has been a quiet retreat to just the occasional MQA mention, and/or the publishing of worthless "press releases" such as the one recently in question here, doesn't mean that TAS isn't still guilty of having aided and abetted in the charade. 

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Do you actually read TAS?

 

No, I canceled my subscription a few years ago, after decades of enjoying the magazine previously, always with a grain of salt, but still enjoyable all the same. So I do not keep a running tally on the MQA coverage by TAS, but I believe I've seen the marked retreat you describe if my cursory look at the content and links is any indication. Again, no feather in your cap there, a full published retraction to RH's hysterical MQA proclamations is in order, something to the effect of "What we now know".

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I'll spring for a digital subscription so you can look for evidence of rampant MQA shilling. But beware, the magazine is pretty thick and you might get distracted by all those equipment and music reviews that fail to mention those reviled initials.

 

I do appreciate that offer, but will kindly pass. I'm largely uninterested in TAS until such time as the above mentioned retraction piece is published. Many times in business all you really have is your reputation and credibility, and once damaged or destroyed, it can be pretty hard to ever get it back.

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I've had no contact at all with Lee Scoggins (once, in this thread, a fierce MQA advocate) and don't see any change in our coverage—or lack thereof—of the technology since he came aboard.

 

Congratulations on that, hopefully there will not be steady stream of these harmless MQA "press release" advertorials, It would not be in the best interest of the magazine for LS to become a press conduit for his buddies Forsythe and Jbara. 

[MikeyFresh]

39 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

This is a doubling and tripling down, if anything. 

 

That it is. I guess my request for a full retraction will fall on deaf ears then. 🤣

[MikeyFresh]

14 hours ago, firedog said:

In the present case, I can assume that anything coming from MQA is at best misleading or even a lie. Ditto for any quote from Mike Jbara. 

 

Thats true, I hadn't thought of it that way. In that sense just more noise from a source of ill repute to completely disregard.

 

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

"(MQA can) only be described as a miracle of modern digital-audio technology and a boon to music lovers."

 

Now I'm worried for RH, has anyone actually seen him in the flesh lately? I'm concerned the above could only come from an AI-armed robot, an area LS's résumé suggests he's well-versed in.

 

Then again LS was a mouthpiece/salesman, not an engineer, so it's possible TAS under-vetted his résumé, opting instead to just splash his stated credentials onto a hiring press release and call it a day.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, UkPhil said:

More push in the media from the CEO of MQA covering their development and marketing of MQA Video 

http://technologyinsidergroup.com/business/mike-jbara-mqa/

 

Part 2 

 

http://technologyinsidergroup.com/business/mike-jbara-mqa-2/
 

 

No doubt a paid advertorial, take a look at who Technology Insider Group is:

 

Marketing Services

Custom Publishing

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

Agree but some companies still add MQA to their DACS and streamers. I guess the want to suck a few dollars off the consumers.

 

Yes and that always the case, most of these companies have engineers that know what's what. This was always a case of ticking off "features" for marketing purposes, and ultimately, shifting boxes in the name of $$$, not superior digital audio performance or value to the consumer, quite the opposite actually.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

You don't have the same acoustics and speakers as in the studio where is was mixed / mastered, so how is this even possible?

 

It is of course impossible, just like it is not possible for MQA to correct for any/all deficiencies in every ADC ever designed/produced.

 

Moreover, their little word game with M4A shows complete ignorance as well, M4A is a container format, and can used with a lossless compression codec such as Apple Lossless, not just AAC.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

57 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Thus defines 'good' marketing

 

You mean bullshit marketing, because there is nothing behind the curtain.

[MikeyFresh]

39 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

This is old and might even have been posted in this thread in the past but it’s still relevant...

 

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

 

 

It was posted here previously, but it bears repeating as it's just as true and relevant today as it ever was. Though the MQA performance claims are dubious/specious at best, this blog post illustrates the crux of the matter.

[MikeyFresh]

36 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Frankly, to be safe, I am going to avoid anything Warner from this day forward.

 

Thats a good idea, much like avoiding TIDAL in general. I'm a satisfied Qobuz subscriber, but if that service were ever no longer available in the U.S. there is a zero % chance that I'd ever use TIDAL for anything.

 

That link posted above by @UkPhil spews BS, all crap debunked now years ago, yet they state it like facts. Then if you click their link to a TIDAL landing page, more of the same, TIDAL themselves guilty of false advertising, a complete crock.

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, Tintinabulum said:

I pay tax for things I never benefit from every day. Nothing new there. 

I'm certain that no one cares what you elect to waste money on.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, Tintinabulum said:

Not really it's very tired stuff, very lame. But hey, keep on banging the drum, nobody's listening.

So you'll promise to put this thread on ignore then? That's GREAT, you're a poor listener anyway.