MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, MaxBuck said:

I still really don't understand the antipathy toward MQA, aside from the marketing babble its promoters use.

 

Doesn't it provide the opportunity to stream high-quality audio while minimizing data usage?  For that purpose alone it seems like a good idea.  Many people are somewhat data-limited, and the ability to lower their GB costs strikes me as a good thing.  But I'm sure I'm missing something here.  Bottom line: all the anti-MQA talk I've heard and read focuses purely on the "MQA = bad" canon without providing any reasons as to why it's bad.  (And don't cite that it "violates the creative output of the recording engineer."  I really couldn't care less what they might want.)

I highly recommend you read up on mQa and watch @GoldenOne’s videos. 
 

MQA consumes more bandwidth than pure PCM when compared Apples to Apples. It chops off information, adds it’s own proprietary encryption, then resamples it up to where it was before it chopped it off. 
 

The big thing for me is it reduces consumer choice. Roon users in Canada only have Tidal as an option for streaming. Tidal removed tons of pure PCM content and replaced it with mQa. Try streaming Tracy Chapman’s self titled album without mQa on Tidal. You can’t. 
 

It’s lossy as well. 
 

If you want lossy perceptual encoding, use MP3 or AAC. 

[KeenObserver]

9 minutes ago, MaxBuck said:

I still really don't understand the antipathy toward MQA, aside from the marketing babble its promoters use.

 

Doesn't it provide the opportunity to stream high-quality audio while minimizing data usage?  For that purpose alone it seems like a good idea.  Many people are somewhat data-limited, and the ability to lower their GB costs strikes me as a good thing.  But I'm sure I'm missing something here.  Bottom line: all the anti-MQA talk I've heard and read focuses purely on the "MQA = bad" canon without providing any reasons as to why it's bad.  (And don't cite that it "violates the creative output of the recording engineer."  I really couldn't care less what they might want.)

 

Seriously?

 

Is the cycle starting again? Apparently MQA is still promoting its scheme. When does the next shoe drop?

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Roon users in Canada only have Tidal as an option for streaming.

 

The non Roon users in Canada use Deezer HiFi, Apple music, Amazon music and some even Qobuz.

[KeenObserver]

How successful has Tidal been in promoting MQA?

 

Does Tidal have any market share?

[MaxBuck]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I highly recommend you read up on mQa and watch @GoldenOne’s videos. 
 

MQA consumes more bandwidth than pure PCM when compared Apples to Apples. It chops off information, adds it’s own proprietary encryption, then resamples it up to where it was before it chopped it off. 
 

The big thing for me is it reduces consumer choice. Roon users in Canada only have Tidal as an option for streaming. Tidal removed tons of pure PCM content and replaced it with mQa. Try streaming Tracy Chapman’s self titled album without mQa on Tidal. You can’t. 
 

It’s lossy as well. 
 

If you want lossy perceptual encoding, use MP3 or AAC. 

Thanks; finally watched this video, though not in its entirety.

 

Frankly, my concern is far less with whether MQA is "lossless" (clearly it's not) than with the distortion that it apparently introduces.  Obviously not good.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, MaxBuck said:

I still really don't understand the antipathy toward MQA, aside from the marketing babble its promoters use.

 

Doesn't it provide the opportunity to stream high-quality audio while minimizing data usage?  For that purpose alone it seems like a good idea.  Many people are somewhat data-limited, and the ability to lower their GB costs strikes me as a good thing.  But I'm sure I'm missing something here.  Bottom line: all the anti-MQA talk I've heard and read focuses purely on the "MQA = bad" canon without providing any reasons as to why it's bad.  (And don't cite that it "violates the creative output of the recording engineer."  I really couldn't care less what they might want.)

 

1. Is lossy - they use semantics here

2. Adds ringing - been proven

3. adds Ultrasonic noise

4. DSP to be louder

5. Not from a master (there is no authentication).

6.Adding cost - pay for encoding, decoding, and the algorithm for MQA - doesn't add anything.

 

Want me to go on?

[KeenObserver]

Put simply: MQA provides no benefit to the music consumer and adds expense to the entire music production and reproduction chain.

 

If MQA's business plan would be implemented, the music consumer would only have access to altered music, not for the better. Access to high quality music would be eliminated. Music quality would be what MQA told you was quality. Independent development of better quality music reproduction would be stunted.

 

MQA tells you that they "improve" the music, but they do everything in their power to prevent people from analyzing the music.  Bob Stuart gets up and presents these ridiculous charts and graphs that don't stand up to scrutiny.

The entire scheme is smoke and mirrors that does not stand up under close independent examination.

 

I certainly don't want to be forced into paying for this scheme.   

[KeenObserver]

Again, it seems so incongruous to me that we have been on a never ending search for better reproduction of music, and MQA and its allied studios want to give us crippled music.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

Put simply: MQA provides no benefit to the music consumer and adds expense to the entire music production and reproduction chain.

 

If MQA's business plan would be implemented, the music consumer would only have access to altered music, not for the better. Access to high quality music would be eliminated. Music quality would be what MQA told you was quality. Independent development of better quality music reproduction would be stunted.

 

MQA tells you that they "improve" the music, but they do everything in their power to prevent people from analyzing the music.  Bob Stuart gets up and presents these ridiculous charts and graphs that don't stand up to scrutiny.

The entire scheme is smoke and mirrors that does not stand up under close independent examination.

 

I certainly don't want to be forced into paying for this scheme.   

 

It is also important to note that the 'authenticated' aspect of MQA is totally meaningless.   The music industry has been selling adulterated materials since the middle 1980s'.

Those who were around back then might remember the lamentations about the 'digital sound'.   This new processing happened during the transition to CDs (digital distributions) and later on was imposed on new vinyl distributions also.  (This 'digital sound' has ZERO to do with 'digital', but is actually additional ANALOG processing.  That specific change in sound could NOT be done in software or even with HW digital techniques in the middle 1980s'.)   So, when I use the term 'digital sound', it is actually just the name of the qualitative change that started happening approx the same time as introduction of CDs.

 

Eventually, people accommodated the 'digital sound' because there was really NO CHANGE to the earlier digital recordings, yet even most of the most ardent audiophiles now accept the 'digital sound' from those earlier recordings as clean and the norm.   (Please note the acceptance of 'Supertramp' digital copies back then, but originally in the 1980s, they had the 'digital sound'.)  This was back when people could compare CLEAN original vinyl with the new 'digital distributions'.   Even then, some of my original vinyl rips of some material had been overly processed, but not to the extent of the 'digital sound' as being distributed about the same time as CDs were appearing.  Most of the 'processing' on earlier vinyl was 'EQ', not even all that much compression.

 

I do not fault the consumer community for the accommodation to the 'processed' sound, but instead I fault an industry who would 'slip in' the new processing, and never explain what they did.   Many in the industry still are not being true to themselves or perhaps have developed a variable accommodation where they EXPECT the released/distributed recordings to have the characteristics of what we called 'digital sound' back in the 1980s.  Somehow, they hear both the mix and the 'distributed' copies, sometimes even noting that the distributed copy sounds more or less the same -- instead, a digital copy should be EXACTLY the same.   I can make practically perfect CDs of any material, why can't the industry?  Of course, they CHOOSE not to provide perfect copies.

 

When I write this, it isn't about advocating anything in particular, but I really do want people who are older than their late 40's-50's search back in their personal 'memory banks' and remember many in the high fidelity oriented audiophile community mentioning the 'digital sound.   I also want to point out that many of those same people would nowadays listen to EXACTLY the same recordings and not notice a qualitative difference between newer recordings and the older recordings with 'digital sound'.  Actually, one might find that the older, original digital releases sound BETTER than the newer digital releases with 'digital sound'.   This is because many new releases have *additional* 'loudness wars' processing, very similar to the extreme processing done at a commercial top-40 AM/FM radio station.

 

So, the term 'Authenticated' on materials that still have this 'digital sound' adulteration away from the original mixed sound is totally meaningless and shows a kind of cynicism that has totally engulfed the music distribution industry.   The ONLY way that MQA would be a 'good thing' is if they remove this 'digital sound' processing and provide the unprocessed materials with just the lower few bits dithered.   I am NOT advocating MQA, because this distribution of clean recordings will simply not happen -- so MQA is just the loss of some low order bits on materials already terribly damaged.

 

MQA is just garbage, yet another way to adulterate consumer recordings, and keeping the consumer from having pure copies of the industry's intellectual property.  This adulteration is NOT a 'secret cabal' or conspiracy, but instead just protection of very valuable intellectual property.   After spending as much money as the customer base has spent, they morally deserve to have access to pure copies of their beloved music.

 

'A' doesn't stand for 'Authenticated', but instead means:  'further Adulterated'.

 

 

 

[MaxBuck]

5 hours ago, botrytis said:

Want me to go on?

No, you provided discrete, objective reasons for avoiding MQA.  Appreciate that.

 

Apparently, simply asking the question here is enough for people to downvote one's posts.  Interesting phenomenon.

[botrytis]

Well, people here are used to 'ringers' coming in and hawking mQa. You might have got caught in that hunting...

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, MaxBuck said:

No, you provided discrete, objective reasons for avoiding MQA.  Appreciate that.

 

Apparently, simply asking the question here is enough for people to downvote one's posts.  Interesting phenomenon.

Your post has been repeated dozens of times over the years and often the posts lead to pissing matches. We are just tired of BS. Don’t take it personally if you had good intentions. 

[MaxBuck]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Your post has been repeated dozens of times over the years and often the posts lead to pissing matches. We are just tired of BS. Don’t take it personally if you had good intentions. 

No problem. I'm not looking for validation here, just information. Appreciate when I get it. 🤓

[Stereo]

Audioquest survey/sweepstakes. It includes a few questions as they want to know what you think of MQA. Good way of telling Audioquest what you think of MQA. Might want to fill it out soon as I thinks it ends at the end of July. https://www.headfonia.com/audioquest-giveaway-survey/

[MaxBuck]

4 minutes ago, Stereo said:

Audioquest survey/sweepstakes. It includes a few questions as they want to know what you think of MQA. Good way of telling Audioquest what you think of MQA. Might want to fill it out soon as I thinks it ends at the end of July. https://www.headfonia.com/audioquest-giveaway-survey/

Oh, great.  Do I also get to provide my opinion on Audioquest and its snake-oil product line?

[GregWormald]

37 minutes ago, MaxBuck said:

Oh, great.  Do I also get to provide my opinion on Audioquest and its snake-oil product line?

Yes.

[Iving]

in an idle moment ...

[John Dyson]

12 hours ago, botrytis said:

Well, people here are used to 'ringers' coming in and hawking mQa. You might have got caught in that hunting...

As long as MQA is interpreted as 'Adulterated' instead of 'Authenticated', and openly disclosed as such -- it bothers me just a little less.   The term 'Authenticated' has an implication of accuracy or near-perfection.   The term 'Authenticated' is so misleading that it is almost certainly deceiving, and could be reasonably interpreted in some ways as a lie.  On the other hand, the term 'Adulterated' is actually an accurate claim.   Still, this doesn't address the fact that MQA is nonsensical for the consumer

 

After being repeated  so many times, in so many ways, and with the MQA advocates being unable to justify their scheme,  MQA is still not helpful for the consumer.*   Perhaps, MQA 'Authentication' might be described as 'strange' or 'eccentric', having nothing really to do with improving or maintaining quality.   As an engineer --it is obviousto me  that AT VERY VERY BEST, MQA is meaningless WRT forward progress for the consumer.  Given current circumstances, the concept and implementation of MQA is regressive.   MQA appears to be  a deceptive and cynical way of making money from the consumer.   Just my opinion....

 

* Using pseudo-technical claims, based on deception, cluelessness, gobbletygook and mixing in random true facts does NOT justify MQA.   Much MQA advocate description of MQA could easily be construed as propaganda.   This is even worse than common sales literature that avoids the negatives in a product, because some MQA advocacy appears actively misleading.

 

.

 

[jcbenten]

"Authenticated" means the DRM triggers are in place...has nothing to do with the provenance of the music.  IMO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, jcbenten said:

"Authenticated" means the DRM triggers are in place...has nothing to do with the provenance of the music.  IMO.

No need to use “IMO” on that one :~)

[KeenObserver]

What I would like to know: Is MQA still trying to foist this horrid scheme on the music consumer?

 

With all the recent examination is MQA conceding "We've been exposed".

                                   OR

Is MQA working still to implement their scheme?

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

What I would like to know: Is MQA still trying to foist this horrid scheme on the music consumer?

 

With all the recent examination is MQA conceding "We've been exposed".

                                   OR

Is MQA working still to implement their scheme?

Bob Stuart won't give up until he runs out of money. The question is will the investors will notice MQA Ltd has no market share and not fund them for 2022.? Or notice that the maket is not interested in paying a premium for audio quality above AAC or 320k MP3? 

[Iving]

6 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Bob Stuart won't give up

 

 

[KeenObserver]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Bob Stuart won't give up until he runs out of money. The question is will the investors will notice MQA Ltd has no market share and not fund them for 2022.? Or notice that the maket is not interested in paying a premium for audio quality above AAC or 320k MP3? 

 

My reading of the last financials posted on Companies House is that they received funding to carry them into 2021, with the promise that more funding would be provided in 2021 to carry them into 2022.

I would expect that Mike Jbara and the crew at MQA Ltd would want to milk this for as long as possible. Jbara is getting a handy compensation package.

At this point. after dumping the tens of millions into the scheme, the underwriters would have to expect to make a HUGE killing in order to continue dumping money into the scheme. In order for that to happen they would have to have been promised by Jbara and the big studios that have a piece of of MQA that they were going to make MQA the de-facto standard. The studios would have to be arrogant enough to think that they could ram MQA down the throats of the music consumer whether they like it or not.

The underwriters are arrogant enough to think that they can ram MQA down the throats of the music consumer. They rammed "Tot" down the throats of the "Kaffirs".

[KeenObserver]

Speaking of Companies House, what does today's posting from MQA Ltd mean?

It basically says that whatever is supposed to be posted has been posted.

???