MQA is Vaporware

[GoldenOne]

26 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

@GoldenOne - From a technical point of view, just consider the MQA encoder is adaptive - MQA say this themselves, so it’s entirely possible it automatically adapts itself to test tones without any “white glove treatment”, so as @The Computer Audiophilesays, be careful!

To play devils advocate, I do think your test tones broke the stated MQA acoustic models, which seem to be done on a track by track basis. 
 

transparency would be good here - so if MQA could provide you with some real data, that would be helpful for one and all?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

Yep. But then this is the problem, there is zero transparency so we simply don't know.
It relies on faith.

If they wanted to put the entire debate to rest they could literally just release the impulse file they claim to be screenshotting.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Yep. But then this is the problem, there is zero transparency so we simply don't know.
It relies on faith.

If they wanted to put the entire debate to rest they could literally just release the impulse file they claim to be screenshotting.

Stop thinking like a reasonable human being who isn’t beholden to a scorched Earth method of making money. 

[idiot_savant]

@GoldenOne- but this is the ( conceptual ) problem of adaptive encoders - it’s entirely plausible that if a track is a single impulse, then either entropy or a special case allows the encoder/decoder to replicate that fully, without any ringing, by the very same way you created it. Considering it’s a classic test, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t accounted for - think of eg Chord & EMM labs who both detect this signal to turn off filtering and obfuscate their magic?

 

@The Computer Audiophile- Feels like your relationship with MQA has gone completely off the rails, can’t say I blame you

 

I swore I wouldn’t get involved in this sort of thread, but those sweet, sweet graphs…

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

Feels like your relationship with MQA has gone completely off the rails, can’t say I blame you

Absolutely. The way those guys acted during my RMAF presentation sealed it for me. All they had to do was be respectful. Heck, I invited them to the presentation.
 

I wanted to love mQa big time. It was the company’s game to lose, and that they sure did. 

[idiot_savant]

@The Computer Audiophile - I saw that clip, and I’d agree they were way out of order there, those bridges look burnt!

 

Probably worth clarifying if Chord, MQA, EMM do special case stuff for impulse detection, whilst it irritates me it’s not actually completely evil, what with it being a completely illegal signal and all

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

 

[Currawong]

3 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

@GoldenOne - From a technical point of view, just consider the MQA encoder is adaptive - MQA say this themselves, so it’s entirely possible it automatically adapts itself to test tones without any “white glove treatment”, so as @The Computer Audiophilesays, be careful!

To play devils advocate, I do think your test tones broke the stated MQA acoustic models, which seem to be done on a track by track basis. 
 

transparency would be good here - so if MQA could provide you with some real data, that would be helpful for one and all?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

I think that this can't be overstated enough. They claim to determine the ADC used by the contents of the track and process accordingly, but how? If they actually did this, surely they'd either have a white paper on it, or, like Rob Watts does, when asked about how his D/A designs work, can provide solid answers.  Instead, from BS, we get get vague answers and technobabble arguments with holes you can drive a truck through. That says to me that the whole idea that they can determine what ADC was used from the music is not true.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

 

I think that this can't be overstated enough. They claim to determine the ADC used by the contents of the track and process accordingly, but how? If they actually did this, surely they'd either have a white paper on it, or, like Rob Watts does, when asked about how his D/A designs work, can provide solid answers.  Instead, from BS, we get get vague answers and technobabble arguments with holes you can drive a truck through. That says to me that the whole idea that they can determine what ADC was used from the music is not true.

 

Where there's gibberish, there's bs and religion. Alternatively, bs by any other name is still bs.

[FredericV]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Absolutely. The way those guys acted during my RMAF presentation sealed it for me.

Something with the time domain  went wrong ...

[lamode]

I couldn't resist...

 

[FredericV]

Just found evidence on Wikipedia, MQA is trying to have "lossy" removed and thus hide the truth, and rewrite the narrative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Master_Quality_Authenticated#Disputed

 

 

Quote

 

As flagged on the Talk tab (30 May), I work for MQA Ltd and would like to improve this page. As an employee I fully understand that any major edits need to be reviewed and also should ideally be made by an independent editor. I would like to start by amending the introduction which is factually incorrect and currently links to an unreliable source. This is my suggested update:

Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) is more than an audio codec ^[1]. MQA is a system which combines new findings in human neuroscience with advances in digital audio techniques, to more efficiently distribute high fidelity audio. The technology, which includes digital authentication to verify provenance, can be applied to music streaming, file download ^[2] and compact disc ^[3]. Launched in 2014 by Meridian Audio, it is now owned and licensed by MQA Ltd, which was founded by Bob Stuart, co-founder of Meridian Audio.

The above improves the initial explanation of MQA by adding additional descriptions with links to reliable 3rd party sources. By inserting "more than" it provides a better explanation of MQA (the magazine article referenced - The Absolute Sound - expands further on this). The addition of CD updates the article and is linked to a magazine review. Accuracy is improved through the removal of "using lossy compression" which links to an unreliable blog source; as well as the removal of "fingerprinting" which is likewise incorrect. Apologies if any of the above is not coded properly - I am learning! MusicTechLondon (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 

 

 

 

and then their proposed changes were countered by the wikipedia editors:

 

Quote

Comment The proposed change reads like advertising copy, so is not appropriate. Removing 'lossy' is not appropriate since it this word informs the reader which of the two branches of data compression the subject falls into.

 

They are also trying to remove the @GoldenOne GoldenSound video from the wiki page:

 

Quote

The YouTube video does not pass the test due to the fact it is: 1) user generated content/self published content. If he was a professional journalist who did youtube videos on the side, it may be different. 2) Video has no editorial oversight. 3) It relies upon personal opinions (hence I argued if the video is included, the videos criticism from Professional audio journalists should be included). However, it appears you do not think those sources are a response to GoldenSounds video (despite the video by Hans YouTube video being titled: "My response to the Golden Sound MQA test", he may not go into individual claims, but it is a response stating he doesn't agree), so the compromise is to remove the GoldenSounds YouTube video entirely to ensure this article remains in line with Wikipedia policy. Quickstick4 (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Just found evidence on Wikipedia, MQA is trying to have "lossy" removed and thus hide the truth, and rewrite the narrative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Master_Quality_Authenticated#Disputed

 

 

and then their proposed changes were countered by the wikipedia editors:

 

 

 

Just another example of mQa at its finest. Right out of the political playbook trying to rewrite history and throwing in some jabs at what they call unreliable sources. Par for the mQa course (no offense to the game of golf.)

[The Computer Audiophile]

That entire mQa wiki edit page is nothing but the company trying to rewrite history and cast others in bad light. I've come to expect nothing less from Ken Forsythe, Mike JBara, Bob Stuart and the rest of them. 

[FredericV]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Just another example of mQa at its finest. Right out of the political playbook trying to rewrite history and throwing in some jabs at what they call unreliable sources. Par for the mQa course (no offense to the game of golf.)

They also tried to remove the GoldenSound video from the wiki page ...

[Rt66indierock]

On 5/7/2021 at 1:46 PM, John_Atkinson said:

 

Agree. And one of the participants, Vicki Melchior, is one of the most respected DSP experts around.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

John did you think nobody would check a few places like LinkedIn and Vicki Melchior’s article High-Resolution Audio: A History and Perspective? Vicki has four activities on LinkedIn and two of them reference Mike Jbara. Her article has many references to Bob Stuart articles too many for the number of streaming users with access to MQA as of the article’s date.

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

The YouTube video does not pass the test due to the fact it is: 1) user generated content/self published content. If he was a professional journalist who did youtube videos on the side, it may be different. 2) Video has no editorial oversight. 3) It relies upon personal opinions (hence I argued if the video is included, the videos criticism from Professional audio journalists should be included). However, it appears you do not think those sources are a response to GoldenSounds video (despite the video by Hans YouTube video being titled: "My response to the Golden Sound MQA test", he may not go into individual claims, but it is a response stating he doesn't agree), so the compromise is to remove the GoldenSounds YouTube video entirely to ensure this article remains in line with Wikipedia policy. Quickstick4 (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 

"Profesional audio journalist"*. That's an oxymoron.  The mQa response refers to Hans as a "Profesional audio journalist".  Is it not the case that Hans' Youtube content is "user generated content/self published content"? Does Hans' content not rely upon "personal opinions"?  And since when does his Youtube videos have "editorial oversight"?

 

* I expect professional journalists to have a code of ethics that includes truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

They also tried to remove the GoldenSound video from the wiki page ...

 

I'fd like to see more of the same linked to the Wiki page. How about a link to the RMAF video? After all, the Wiki article even references What HiFi and Darko, LOL!

[GregWormald]

May I suggest that much of the content since FredericV's post be also submitted to Wikipedia for the "dispute"?

10 hours ago, FredericV said:

Just found evidence on Wikipedia, MQA is trying to have "lossy" removed and thus hide the truth, and rewrite the narrative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Master_Quality_Authenticated#Disputed

 

[ARQuint]

On 5/24/2021 at 1:48 AM, FredericV said:

Something with the time domain  went wrong ...

I'm pretty sure it's a big mistake to contribute anything to this thread that isn't an earnest and outraged testament to the irredeemably evil essence of MQA. But without commenting on the value of the technology, I feel it's worth pointing out instances— on both sides in this pitched battle—when myths have been created and false narratives propagated.

 

In the case of the 2018 RMAF seminar, the representation of what actually happened there has been increasingly reductive. Even at the time, the context of MQA's disruptive behavior was not fairly addressed. On Oct 7, 2018, the date of Chris's presentation, the "MQA is Vaporware" thread was already 404 pages long and MQA had every expectation to believe that the seminar would be a hatchet job. After all, Computer Audiophile (as it was still officially known in the Fall of 2018) was day-in-and-day-out providing a platform for an increasingly virulent attack on not just their product, but also their intellectual, moral, and ethical character.

 

There couldn't have been more than 50 people present at the seminar and, had it not been for MQA's activist participation (which I do believe was proactively disruptive) I'm not convinced that many more would have watched the YouTube video. These archived seminars aren't exactly "Must-see TV." But now, it's offered as evidence for the shameful corporate conduct of MQA Ltd. Roughly two-and-a-half years after the event, the behavior of those from the company has been reduced to that five seconds of the bald guy, Khrushchev-like, banging on the desk as he loudly makes a point. If you actually watch the video, the MQA attendees say nothing at all for the first 10 minutes of the seminar until it is awfully clear that Chris's presentation will not be an attempt at even-handedness. Having looked at those 404 pages of "Vaporware", the MQA representatives had an idea of what Chris's argument might be like, and they were right. Although they began with a measured tone, the MQA folks definitely came loaded for bear—and it wasn't all in their heads. In this whole conflagration, I'm not sure there has been, from either side, a more disingenuous statement than Chris's just a few minutes into his talk: "I may give an opinion at the end—I can't remember if it's in the slides." Really?

 

For several years, meaningful discussion hasn't occurred here, on the "Vaporware" thread, even when some of the finest minds are involved. Consider Archimago. His methodical, exhaustive and temperate critique of MQA three years ago made him a hero in many audiophile circles, his AS article a useful point of reference for all involved in what was once something resembling a debate. Now, his response to Bob Stuart's response to GoldenOne report on his Tidal experience involves a facile dismissal rather than the point-by-point rebuttal of Stuart's statement I would have loved to read. For sure, something's been lost with anything resembling our sense of a thoughtful community of enthusiasts. Maybe it actually is about "saving babies and killing puppies," at least in the minds of some of the combatants.

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I'm pretty sure it's a big mistake to contribute anything to this thread that isn't an earnest and outraged testament to the irredeemably evil essence of MQA. But without commenting on the value of the technology, I feel it's worth pointing out instances— on both sides in this pitched battle—when myths have been created and false narratives propagated.

 

In the case of the 2018 RMAF seminar, the representation of what actually happened there has been increasingly reductive. Even at the time, the context of MQA's disruptive behavior was not fairly addressed. On Oct 7, 2018, the date of Chris's presentation, the "MQA is Vaporware" thread was already 404 pages long and MQA had every expectation to believe that the seminar would be a hatchet job. After all, Computer Audiophile (as it was still officially known in the Fall of 2018) was day-in-and-day-out providing a platform for an increasingly virulent attack on not just their product, but also their intellectual, moral, and ethical character.

 

There couldn't have been more than 50 people present at the seminar and, had it not been for MQA's activist participation (which I do believe was proactively disruptive) I'm not convinced that many more would have watched the YouTube video. These archived seminars aren't exactly "Must-see TV." But now, it's offered as evidence for the shameful corporate conduct of MQA Ltd. Roughly two-and-a-half years after the event, the behavior of those from the company has been reduced to that five seconds of the bald guy, Khrushchev-like, banging on the desk as he loudly makes a point. If you actually watch the video, the MQA attendees say nothing at all for the first 10 minutes of the seminar until it is awfully clear that Chris's presentation will not be an attempt at even-handedness. Having looked at those 404 pages of "Vaporware", the MQA representatives had an idea of what Chris's argument might be like, and they were right. Although they began with a measured tone, the MQA folks definitely came loaded for bear—and it wasn't all in their heads. In this whole conflagration, I'm not sure there has been, from either side, a more disingenuous statement than Chris's just a few minutes into his talk: "I may give an opinion at the end—I can't remember if it's in the slides." Really?

 

For several years, meaningful discussion hasn't occurred here, on the "Vaporware" thread, even when some of the finest minds are involved. Consider Archimago. His methodical, exhaustive and temperate critique of MQA three years ago made him a hero in many audiophile circles, his AS article a useful point of reference for all involved in what was once something resembling a debate. Now, his response to Bob Stuart's response to GoldenOne report on his Tidal experience involves a facile dismissal rather than the point-by-point rebuttal of Stuart's statement I would have loved to read. For sure, something's been lost with anything resembling our sense of a thoughtful community of enthusiasts. Maybe it actually is about "saving babies and killing puppies," at least in the minds of some of the combatants.

 

 

 

Surely you jest. 
 

 

[ARQuint]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Surely you jest. 
 

 

Probably best that I maintain that's the case when the Western Hemisphere part of the AS "Vaporware" constituency wakes up and gets some caffeine into it's collective nervous system. Thanks for the fall-back position, Chris.

[lamode]

25 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

the MQA attendees say nothing at all for the first 10 minutes of the seminar until it is awfully clear that Chris's presentation will not be an attempt at even-handedness

 

Not sure what you mean about "even-handedness". If there is nothing good to say about MQA, and clearly there isn't, then any factual and reasonable presentation about MQA will be highly critical.

[Confused]

I can only speak for myself, but personally I think I am more than capable of watching the RMAF video and drawing my own conclusions.

 

I liked the longer version best, some of chat after Chris had left was quite informative.

[Thuaveta]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

After all, Computer Audiophile (as it was still officially known in the Fall of 2018) was day-in-and-day-out providing a platform for an increasingly virulent attack on not just their product, but also their intellectual, moral, and ethical character.

 

Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but they're the ones who made it about trust in the man whose name was soon to become synonymous with his initials, so I'd counter that assuming they had a case, had they provided the critics with the tools to love them instead of argument by authority, neither the backlash nor the personification would've happened.

 

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

If you actually watch the video, the MQA attendees say nothing at all for the first 10 minutes of the seminar until it is awfully clear that Chris's presentation will not be an attempt at even-handedness.

 

This is an interesting one, because it's one that morphs depending on how one sees the position of the audiophile press on the continuum between consumer advocacy and industry mouthpiece. I'm not entirely certain that Chris could, or should, have been more even-handed given what was known of MQA at that point.

[ARQuint]

40 minutes ago, lamode said:

 

Not sure what you mean about "even-handedness". If there is nothing good to say about MQA, and clearly there isn't, then any factual and reasonable presentation about MQA will be highly critical.

Fair enough. But the title of seminar was "MQA: The Truth Lies Somewhere in the Middle". That could lead to a reasonable expectation that Chris would have something positive to say about MQA. I suspect that Ken et al anticipated that the seminar would be entirely negative and came prepared to disrupt the presentation.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Probably best that I maintain that's the case when the Western Hemisphere part of the AS "Vaporware" constituency wakes up and gets some caffeine into it's collective nervous system. Thanks for the fall-back position, Chris.

Hello Q, your attempting to rewrite history. I find it funny that you and @John_Atkinson come out of the woodwork today in support of each other, as mQa inches closer to irrelevance and attempts to smear @GoldenOne for his honest video. It’s as if the old guard is the PR wing of mQa. That’s certainly not the hill I’d die on.