MQA is Vaporware

[UkPhil]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I (and others) said when they announced the new pricing that it would be the nail in the coffin of MQA. There were supposedly only a total of a few hundred K subscribers to the "Masters" tier before. In other words, an insignificant amount not only in the audiophile/music lovers world, but a insignificant sliver of the total market. A fraction of  one percent. 

I'm guessing that number will actually decline. How many new subscribers will pay for MQA instead of the CD level tier? Probably close to none. 

 

Tidal will inadvertently prove that MQA has near zero market viability. And that will prevent anyone else from adopting it as a delivery medium. Tidal themselves will probably dump it after a while - whenever contracts permit and egg can be removed from face. 

Plus there’s only approx 6 million MQA encoded files so a small proportion to Tidals active library, unfortunately these titles will probably not be delivered as true 16/44.1 PCM standard files for the hifi tier users, I don’t think they would put back the one they took away a few months ago when Warners and Sony delivered revised 16bit MQA versions, a bit of mess to be honest 

[Archimago]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

I (and others) said when they announced the new pricing that it would be the nail in the coffin of MQA. There were supposedly only a total of a few hundred K subscribers to the "Masters" tier before. In other words, an insignificant amount not only in the audiophile/music lovers world, but a insignificant sliver of the total market. A fraction of  one percent. 

I'm guessing that number will actually decline. How many new subscribers will pay for MQA instead of the CD level tier? Probably close to none. 

 

Tidal will inadvertently prove that MQA has near zero market viability. And that will prevent anyone else from adopting it as a delivery medium. Tidal themselves will probably dump it after a while - whenever contracts permit and egg can be removed from face. 

 

Yup, I think this is correct @firedog. I was certainly pleasantly surprised by the decision of TIDAL to split the "HiFi" and "HiFi+" tiers. I guess it was bound to happen in some ways given the months already that Apple and Amazon had been offering the $10/month pricing.

 

I'm sure the *strong* potential for this split to hasten the decline of mQa is not lost on TIDAL nor the mQa folks. I bet internally mQa is not happy about this development...

 

Who knows, maybe internally TIDAL themselves are in some ways hoping that mQa will just roll over and die so maybe they could be free from whatever contractual arrangements (shackles?) there are earlier. One could only hope this is the level of insight they have on this matter.

 

Another "tell" I think will the pace of labels converting their "hi-res" over to mQa. I suspect this will slow down and we won't see "millions" of tracks converted over as they realize there's just no return on investment by doing this. Other than TIDAL, there's no real demand elsewhere.

 

I find it funny BTW, as much as that recent "Strata-Gee" article might complain about "This Battle is Not Fun" or "passionate extremists" ruining it for everyone, what else are the "anti-MQA" folks supposed to do? On the pro-MQA side we have corporate interests with $$$, mainstream magazine editors, "authority" figures like BS and various audio engineers lending their endorsements vs. the anti-MQA side with grassroots forum members, bloggers, YouTube posters without direct access to the encoding/decoding and peeking behind the corners whether by rational deduction, experimentation, reverse engineering (as per @mansr) or @GoldenOne's publication of "music" on TIDAL!

 

Of course this is all a "tempest in a teapot" on a historical perspective, but there's fun I think to make a mark in this mini-"David vs. Goliath" story that I think can send a cautionary note to companies and audiophile magazines who think they can just say anything or sell audiophiles anything as if the hobbyists are uneducated consumers only too happy to send them money.

 

Anyhow, the proverbial "Fat Lady" hasn't sung yet on MQA but I do hope we're getting really close to the end of MQA being a "concern". Until then, still gotta be vigilant I think. Looking forward to seeing the results of that "HiFi" vs. "HiFi+" subscribership numbers (aka "referendum on mQa").

[Thuaveta]

11 hours ago, Archimago said:

Looking forward to seeing the results of that "HiFi" vs. "HiFi+" subscribership numbers (aka "referendum on mQa").

 

Given what we know from Roon's agreement with mQa, where you've got a clientele that might be more sensitive to the pitch than elsewhere, alongside a company that pays per decode, I'd be doubly curious to know how their subscriber base received the changes.

[GregWormald]

16 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

Given what we know from Roon's agreement with mQa, where you've got a clientele that might be more sensitive to the pitch than elsewhere, alongside a company that pays per decode, I'd be doubly curious to know how their subscriber base received the changes.

Given that audiophiles are in the minority of listeners then the all-too-common response could well be: "Oh boy, only $X per month to upgrade my system? A bargain! Sign me up!"

[The Computer Audiophile]

I love Neil Young's wording in this. So good. 

 

"... in authentic high res, on Qobuz..."

 

 

 

[R1200CL]

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/partners/mqa-partner-wins-what-hi-fi-awards-2021

[firedog]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/partners/mqa-partner-wins-what-hi-fi-awards-2021

Only a repeat of the past: What hi fi have shilled for MQA from day one.

[KeenObserver]

Receiving a What-Hi-Fi award is like being named the world's tallest midget.

 

I don't know if this denigrates What-Hi-Fi or those receiving the awards the most.

 

I know that if I received the Prince Philip award from the Royal Society of Engineers I wouldn't tell anyone.

[Archimago]

8 hours ago, R1200CL said:

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/partners/mqa-partner-wins-what-hi-fi-awards-2021

 

Looks like mQa tooting their own horn by gathering a few of those What HiFi winners into their own web page article.

 

Not impressed by What HiFi perpetuating the slimy wording "It brings audio quality up to 9216 kbps (i.e. hi-res) by supporting Tidal Masters via Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) technology". Obviously TIDAL is not able to stream even close to that kind of kbps.

 

[R1200CL]

Most articles has the writers name published. Not so with What Hifi. isn’t that a bit suspicious ?
https://www.whathifi.com/tidal/review

 

 

I got an email from MQA  that proclaimed this award. 
 

https://mailchi.mp/mqa/b2c-english-dec-2021?e=8dd14d259a

 

 

[Archimago]

On 12/18/2021 at 12:11 AM, R1200CL said:

Most articles has the writers name published. Not so with What Hifi. isn’t that a bit suspicious ?
https://www.whathifi.com/tidal/review

 

 

I got an email from MQA  that proclaimed this award. 
 

https://mailchi.mp/mqa/b2c-english-dec-2021?e=8dd14d259a

 

 

 

Yeah, it's a bit odd with What Hi-Fi? and their reviews being unattributed. Many of their reviews/awards are like this. Maybe that's meaningful as you suggest about the nature of these reviews and the actual source of the ideas...

 

[ARQuint]

17 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Yeah, it's a bit odd with What Hi-Fi? and their reviews being unattributed. Many of their reviews/awards are like this. Maybe that's meaningful as you suggest about the nature of these reviews and the actual source of the ideas...

 

Is Archimago suggesting that there's an important difference between "unattributed" and "anonymous"? Our Product of the Year Awards are actually written by the person who wrote the full review, even though his name or initials aren't given. But the issue number is provided in the blurb so you can find out who it was. Look, I'm no partisan when it comes to the MQA debate but I continue to detect a double standard when it comes to public discussion of this technology. Engineers who have anything good to say about MQA are either unqualified or shameless shills; engineers who condemn it are courageous truth-tellers. The dynamic, unfortunately, parallels the tone of the discussion with far more critical issues of the day—vaccination, climate change, election integrity, and so on.

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer, TAS

[firedog]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Is Archimago suggesting that there's an important difference between "unattributed" and "anonymous"? Our Product of the Year Awards are actually written by the person who wrote the full review, even though his name or initials aren't given. But the issue number is provided in the blurb so you can find out who it was. Look, I'm no partisan when it comes to the MQA debate but I continue to detect a double standard when it comes to public discussion of this technology. Engineers who have anything good to say about MQA are either unqualified or shameless shills; engineers who condemn it are courageous truth-tellers. The dynamic, unfortunately, parallels the tone of the discussion with far more critical issues of the day—vaccination, climate change, election integrity, and so on.

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer, TAS

 

Andrew, you are just cherry picking data for your side here and not saying anything you can back up. The double standard you detect exists only in your own prejudices and pre-conceived notions.

 

There are some very famous engineers on both sides of the debate. I don't think those who support MQA have been routinely referred to  as unqualified or shills. Nor has their recording work been trashed or boycotted. 

 

What you fail to note is that the pro MQA side (including the company itself) regularly uses their names and reputations to "prove" how great MQA is. Including in some instances in clear promotional/paid contexts (ad campaigns, etc.).

 

In such a case, it's not outlandish to assume the person in question is receiving some kind of compensation for the endorsement. The public should know if these are paid endorsements or not.

 

And clearly the anti-MQA side has no one paying for it's criticisms of the tech, because there's clearly no one to foot such a bill. 

 

And "climate change", etc.: Really? Think again. What side has lied and obfuscated on a regular basis? What side is using unscientific methods and deception? What side refuses to give direct answers to simple questions? Which side shouts down the other at a public presentation? Which side refuses to allow it's tech to be properly tested? 

 

So  your attempt at "equivalency" doesn't hold up. 

 

There's a double standard here, but it's on the MQA side.

 

 

 

 

[firedog]

On 12/18/2021 at 10:11 AM, R1200CL said:

Most articles has the writers name published. Not so with What Hifi. isn’t that a bit suspicious ?
https://www.whathifi.com/tidal/review

 

 

I got an email from MQA  that proclaimed this award. 
 

https://mailchi.mp/mqa/b2c-english-dec-2021?e=8dd14d259a

 

 

If Tidal is "unquestionably" it, how come so many people don't think so? If it was, none of the other hi-res services would have subscribers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Is Archimago suggesting that there's an important difference between "unattributed" and "anonymous"?

2+2=4 whether it’s written by anonymous or it’s unattributed. Objectivity is the basis for @Archimago’s work and anyone with the requisite skills can check it. 
 

This is very different from the advertorials he mentioned. 

[ARQuint]

57 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

2+2=4 whether it’s written by anonymous or it’s unattributed. Objectivity is the basis for @Archimago’s work and anyone with the requisite skills can check it. 
 

This is very different from the advertorials he mentioned. 

 

But the What Hi-Fi? award is to TIDAL, not to MQA. MQA Ldt touts TIDAL in their promotional material (as expected, as no other streaming service has taken them on.) What I see is that What Hi-Fi? is considered in the thread as worthy of scorn because they like TIDAL, and TIDAL is worthy of scorn because they offer MQA. It's all so tribal...

 

Andy

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, ARQuint said:

 

But the What Hi-Fi? award is to TIDAL, not to MQA. MQA Ldt touts TIDAL in their promotional material (as expected, as no other streaming service has taken them on.) What I see is that What Hi-Fi? is considered in the thread as worthy of scorn because they like TIDAL, and TIDAL is worthy of scorn because they offer MQA. It's all so tribal...

 

Andy

 

 

I thought you were talking about anonymous versus unattributed. Oops. 

[FredericV]

Lot's of work, taking a small break now and noticing that the nr1 influencer is always referring to master tapes and the analog domain, even though we don't use those any longer since 201X - it's all digital now ....

https://www.monoandstereo.com/2012/08/interview-with-2l-morten-lindberg.html

2L.no does not use analog master tapes .... I'm betting everything is file based now and they probably have offsite backups. DAW's do not work with tape.

Furthermore he claims it is impossible to measure time smear, as answer on the question for any actual proof:




We have to revert to the 'GO LISTEN' argument now?

Let's deblur this: there is no proof, mQa has never shown any proof that it can correct time smear (all it has shown is upsample filters with one cycle of postringing, which is no proof that it corrects audible errors). Furthermore, the 'GO LISTEN' argument was already debunked by the McGill U mQa study.

[the_bat]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

2+2=4 whether it’s written by anonymous or it’s unattributed. Objectivity is the basis for @Archimago’s work and anyone with the requisite skills can check it. 
 

This is very different from the advertorials he mentioned. 

 

I thought that the comment about anonymous What HiFi articles was a gentle dig at the MQA supporters who trashed Archimago's work on the grounds that he (or she) was anonymous.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, the_bat said:

 

I thought that the comment about anonymous What HiFi articles was a gentle dig at the MQA supporters who trashed Archimago's work on the grounds that he (or she) was anonymous.

That's what I assumed as well. 

 

So, I tried to give an example that @Archimago's work can be done by anyone with or without a name because it's repeatable. Subjectively handing Tidal or mQa an award for seemingly strange reasons, should be backed by a name who decided that. Without a name, it's an advertorial. With a name it may still be an advertorial, but at least there's some accountability. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

But the What Hi-Fi? award is to TIDAL, not to MQA. MQA Ldt touts TIDAL in their promotional material (as expected, as no other streaming service has taken them on.) What I see is that What Hi-Fi? is considered in the thread as worthy of scorn because they like TIDAL, and TIDAL is worthy of scorn because they offer MQA. It's all so tribal...

 

Andy

 

What Hi-Fi is worthy of scorn for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with MQA. And you don't have to be in the anti-MQA "tribe" to realize it's not really a serious mag and is captured by the industry - it's a mouthpiece for  industry practices masquerading as a magazine that gives serious reviews. 

[AudioDoctor]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

What Hi-Fi is worthy of scorn for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with MQA. And you don't have to be in the anti-MQA "tribe" to realize it's not really a serious mag and is captured by the industry - it's a mouthpiece for  industry practices masquerading as a magazine that gives serious reviews. 

 

Hey come on now, What Hi-Fi is great if you want to read the manufacturers ad copy...

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Hey come on now, What Hi-Fi is great if you want to read the manufacturers ad copy...

It's collection all in one place for you. Very convenient. 

[MikeyFresh]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

it's a mouthpiece for  industry practices masquerading as a magazine that gives serious reviews. 

... and has been for a VERY long time now. ARQ's rag is an essentially similar advertorial.

[AudioDoctor]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's collection all in one place for you. Very convenient. 

 

Right! I can compare them to each other and decide which I like best to help with my purchase decisions!