MQA and the Sponsor Wars

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Because it makes no sense.

And everybody who thinks it does, does not know how things work.

And no, I am not going to elaborate.

Hi,

Why does it make no sense ?. People had to state which tracks were preferred - and they did so.

If it was an anti-MQA test, then it will not have been 50:50.

On the face of it, since it produced a 50:50 result on the preference of MQA or High resolution, shows that neither are better than the other.

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

14 minutes ago, Shadders said:

People had to state which tracks were preferred - and they did so.

 

It is in the same realm of someone telling that MQA upsampling can be done with SoX and you'd have the same as MQA. Now watch me :

If *I* upsample MQA with my software, it is better than MQA.

 

Does that make that sense ?

Of course not. It is apples and oranges.

And then also to think that this is all in the context of people who don't hear a difference between full monty Soxed  MQA and DXD. And they prove it by means of a whole room audio show people not hearing a difference. Well, then they are all deaf. Super deaf.

 

Shadders, I deliberately mixed (up) as many as possible stories and persons, because this is how apples and oranges work.

It is also the diffmaker's (noun) story which of course proves that nothing can make a difference anywhere. The biggest balony ever.

Says me.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It is in the same realm of someone telling that MQA upsampling can be done with SoX and you'd have the same as MQA. Now watch me :

If *I* upsample MQA with my software, it is better than MQA.

 

Does that make that sense ?

Of course not. It is apples and oranges.

And then also to think that this is all in the context of people who don't hear a difference between full monty Soxed  MQA and DXD. And they prove it by means of a whole room audio show people not hearing a difference. Well, then they are all deaf. Super deaf.

 

Shadders, I deliberately mixed (up) as many as possible stories and persons, because this is how apples and oranges work.

It is also the diffmaker's (noun) story which of course proves that nothing can make a difference anywhere. The biggest balony ever.

Says me.

Hi,

Sorry, you have lost me. If i listen to two tracks, all i have to do is state which one i prefer. This was the test ?? was it not ?

 

Your upsampling example - knowing what a fantastic engineer you are, i would believe you. You may have implemented a different kernel, or other modification to change the final signal. So it may be better - engineering wise - less aliasing or other.

 

Was the test a robust test as per the process that a drug company implements ? No, but then no one has died, not even my cat, Schrodinger. Black and white cat. Or is that white and black....

 

Whatever MQA is, the simple test showed no preference, as it is all subjective when listening.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[witchdoctor]

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Try to find a YouTube in there that deals with MQA, apart from the one guy continuously asking, explicitly not getting an answer.

So you are doing it again - you link to something, SAY that it is about MQA but all you do is lie about it. Now THAT is vaporware !

This is about marketing. LG needs to compete against the new iPhone. How is it different? They have staked a claim to being the best audio. They market audio first, the DAC they use, the filters, and MQA altogether. For a phone that stakes its claim on having the BEST audio they implemented MQA and have 0 competitors in the phone space for that codec and the dac they use.

Now if you were a marketer what service provider would you do a joint venture with to get that phone to go viral? If you can't figure that out... duh
 

[witchdoctor]

41 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It is in the same realm of someone telling that MQA upsampling can be done with SoX and you'd have the same as MQA. Now watch me :

If *I* upsample MQA with my software, it is better than MQA.

 

Does that make that sense ?

Of course not. It is apples and oranges.

And then also to think that this is all in the context of people who don't hear a difference between full monty Soxed  MQA and DXD. And they prove it by means of a whole room audio show people not hearing a difference. Well, then they are all deaf. Super deaf.

 

Shadders, I deliberately mixed (up) as many as possible stories and persons, because this is how apples and oranges work.

It is also the diffmaker's (noun) story which of course proves that nothing can make a difference anywhere. The biggest balony ever.

Says me.

PeterSt your contributions in this thread are greatly valued, all voices are welcome. This thread is about the marketing aspects of MQA. You have another technical thread to discuss apples, oranges, DXD, full monty's etc. However your other post about LG was spot on for the marketing topic. Let's not derail this into another thread about the tech side OK? Mansr does a fine job moderating that thread. As for the "vaporware" thread you will find plenty of "baloney" lovers over there. they obsess on baloney and will love your expertise on baloney. You could almost say they are FULL of baloney.Thanks

[witchdoctor]

30 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Sorry, you have lost me.

Me too, please keep technical discussions in the tech/MQA thread.Don't want to get lost in the sauce (or apples and oranges)  

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

This is about marketing. LG needs to compete against the new iPhone. How is it different? They have staked a claim to being the best audio. They market audio first, the DAC they use, the filters, and MQA altogether.

 

A smartphone maker touting the "best audio" is kind of like a meat processor touting the 'best hot dog".  At the end of the day, it's still a hot dog.  The DACs in smartphones serve a mass market demographic, not an audiophile demographic.  They are an afterthought, designed to a minimum quality that the market will accept.

 

And neither LG or Apple smartphone sound quality will come remotely close to brands like Astell & Kern, Fiio, Hifiman, and others.

 

BTW, I have a Onkyo DP-X1 and it decodes MQA.  Testing with files from 2L, the MQA version sounds worse than the PCM.

[witchdoctor]

6 hours ago, FredericV said:

MQA is not going to replace MP3:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=mqa,flac,surround,vinyl,mp3

 

replacing "MP3" with "atmos" gives an interesting result:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=mqa,flac,surround,vinyl,atmos


 

Interest in surround, flac and atmos are similar, while MQA is almost a flatline. Vinyl rocks. MP3 is much bigger than any of these other search terms.

FredericV how did they market MP3 to the point that it nearly obliterated vinyl? The SQ can't compare why did it drive vinyl almost to extinction? How did marketing help vinyl fight back?
 

[PeterSt]

29 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Whatever MQA is, the simple test showed no preference, as it is all subjective when listening.

 

Shadders, no. Nothing is subjective here as it only requires the skill of listening. I am sure you can do it yourself as good as I can. But if you listen to a test like that, then no wonder people don't hear a difference, including you.

Might you cross the Noth Sea one day, I will happily welcome you and show you the difference even with your ears closed.

 

So yes I lost you and this was on purpose. As I said, I mixed as many things as possible because those guys do that too. It is easy : if I want to show with Diffmaker that there can't be an audible difference between two situations, I just run that and show the plot of it. But I would be VERY thick if I did see - and showed differences and state that at -160dB or whatever it is there THUS can not be an audible difference. This, with thus the notice that the audible differences are all over the place to begin with (audible to about everyone, I mean).

 

witchdoctor : this is pure marketing(-blurp).

 

 

[mav52]

6 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

This is about marketing. LG needs to compete against the new iPhone. How is it different? They have staked a claim to being the best audio. They market audio first, the DAC they use, the filters, and MQA altogether. For a phone that stakes its claim on having the BEST audio they implemented MQA and have 0 competitors in the phone space for that codec and the dac they use.

Now if you were a marketer what service provider would you do a joint venture with to get that phone to go viral? If you can't figure that out... duh
 

Where is the LG manufacturer link that notes LG is "best audio

 

This is their webpage on the LG phone with MQA, not the first word of MQA in the head marketing pages,  the phone is marketed not as a MQA phone but a smartphone that does a lot of other items well, like its new display and its improved camera and its sound, but not a mention of MQA in the sound area of the head marketing page, you have to scroll down into the lower audio spec area. .  So its marketing is not driven by MQA.

http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-LS998U-lg-v30-plus

[witchdoctor]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

So yes I lost you and this was on purpose.

 

Please unlose us in your future posts, thanks.

[Shadders]

18 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Me too, please keep technical discussions in the tech/MQA thread.Don't want to get lost in the sauce (or apples and oranges)  

Hi,

On the marketing side, you will not see any MQA Ltd sourced video about MQA saying, well, we had a listen and it is crap.

 

MQA Ltd will only ever produce positive MQA videos, or articles.

 

With the Archimago test, no specific format was preferred. Given that there is so much more disagreement that MQA is better, then the 50:50 result seems fair, despite not strictly following testing methodology.

 

If there was such a conspiracy to deride MQA, at all consequences, then the Archimago test would have shown everyone preferred High Resolution and not MQA.

 

I have some high resolution Blu-Ray discs - and they sound no better than a well produced redbook CD.

 

People now listen to music as a background noise event, and this is the reason for MP3 - compact, and adequate quality. Marketing MQA as high resolution appeals to the very few, and pointless as 99% of people (non hifi buffs)  really can't tell the difference.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, witchdoctor said:

Please unlose us in your future posts, thanks.

 

I am still way behind on your BS in the other threads. A 100 posts on estimate.

But I'll try to be nice.

 

Remember, I am applying marketing right now. But as you can see I must learn a lot.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Shadders, no. Nothing is subjective here as it only requires the skill of listening. I am sure you can do it yourself as good as I can. But if you listen to a test like that, then no wonder people don't hear a difference, including you.

Might you cross the Noth Sea one day, I will happily welcome you and show you the difference even with your ears closed.

 

So yes I lost you and this was on purpose. As I said, I mixed as many things as possible because those guys do that too. It is easy : if I want to show with Diffmaker that there can't be an audible difference between two situations, I just run that and show the plot of it. But I would be VERY thick if I did see - and showed differences and state that at -160dB or whatever it is there THUS can not be an audible difference. This, with thus the notice that the audible differences are all over the place to begin with (audible to about everyone, I mean).

 

witchdoctor : this is pure marketing(-blurp).

Hi PeterSt,

Well, listening is subjective. Some people like more bass, others prefer more hf. Surely that was the test - which one was preferred ?. It is a personal preference.

i understand that people can be trained to hear differences, but that was not the test - it was about, which one was preferred ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Well, listening is subjective. Some people like more bass, others prefer more hf. Surely that was the test - which one was preferred ?. It is a personal preference.

 

Hey Shadders - no again. Once you crossed the hurdle of having all kinds of misery out of the way (call them distortions) then you compare with real instruments. And this is not subjective, but you must know the instruments. This is nothing about liking as such. Nothing. Call me famous for neutrality, which is a phenomenon in itself.

 

Now I am out of here because wd starts to be right. You can of course start a thread for this, but with the warning that many of those have been in CA about this already. About objectivists vs subjectivists and such.

 

Thanks and regards,

Peter

[Fyper]

On 28/10/2017 at 4:52 PM, witchdoctor said:

Let me tell you how you market any product. Rule number one is you TARGET people who WANT the solution you are offering.

Sorry to come back to that so late in the discussion.

And yes it's been said many times but still.

There is a misunderstanding there. The target for MQA is not the people, but the Majors. If they have the majors they will have everything upstream (studios, artists) and downstream (streaming companies, hardware manufacturers). This is where they will make their money and control the market.

What their comm. and their agents may tell the people is just to get us prepared to what may come, and accept it, better: embrace it. That kind of approach has been used countless times.

Again, it has nothing to do with how it sounds, or whether we like it or not. It is rather simple: in the future, if there remains alternatives to proprietary MQA on the market for streaming and downloading DRM free uncompressed music, both in Red book and in High Res (including DSD), then everyone will make their choices and I wish success to MQA.

I hope I’m wrong but that may not be how the MQA boys and the majors see it…

[witchdoctor]

49 minutes ago, mav52 said:

Where is the LG manufacturer link that notes LG is "best audio

 

This is their webpage on the LG phone with MQA, not the first word of MQA in the head marketing pages,  the phone is marketed not as a MQA phone but a smartphone that does a lot of other items well, like its new display and its improved camera and its sound, but not a mention of MQA in the sound area of the head marketing page, you have to scroll down into the lower audio spec area. .  So its marketing is not driven by MQA.

http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-LS998U-lg-v30-plus

The phone you linked to is the + version that does VR.

They launched the phone at an AUDIO show, the IFA in Berlin. Read the press release:

 

https://www.xda-developers.com/lg-v30-specs-snapdragon-835-released/

[Shadders]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hey Shadders - no again. Once you crossed the hurdle of having all kinds of misery out of the way (call them distortions) then you compare with real instruments. And this is not subjective, but you must know the instruments. This is nothing about liking as such. Nothing. Call me famous for neutrality, which is a phenomenon in itself.

 

Now I am out of here because wd starts to be right. You can of course start a thread for this, but with the warning that many of those have been in CA about this already. About objectivists vs subjectivists and such.

 

Thanks and regards,

Peter

Hi PeterSt,

I will not start a subjective vs. objective thread. As a response, the majority of people will not know how a real instruments sounds, etc., as it is pop they are interested in. Nor are they interested in hifi/audio per se. MP3 is adequate, as they don't listen as you have alluded to.

I am not sure the Archimago test was, which one sounds like a real instrument, test.

All things being equal, and seeing that the younger general public are happy with MP3 - even when compared to CD, as that is all they have known, and hifi is a "specialist" interest, the MQA vs, High Resolution is a non-event.

Are the general public going to pay more for MQA for something they can't really hear the difference ?.

Probably not, so all the marketing, sponsorship for MQA, etc., is lost money.

Regards,

Shadders.

[witchdoctor]

26 minutes ago, Fyper said:

Sorry to come back to that so late in the discussion.

And yes it's been said many times but still.

There is a misunderstanding there. The target for MQA is not the people, but the Majors. If they have the majors they will have everything upstream (studios, artists) and downstream (streaming companies, hardware manufacturers). This is where they will make their money and control the market.

What their comm. and their agents may tell the people is just to get us prepared to what may come, and accept it, better: embrace it. That kind of approach has been used countless times.

Again, it has nothing to do with how it sounds, or whether we like it or not. It is rather simple: in the future, if there remains alternatives to proprietary MQA on the market for streaming and downloading DRM free uncompressed music, both in Red book and in High Res (including DSD), then everyone will make their choices and I wish success to MQA.

I hope I’m wrong but that may not be how the MQA boys and the majors see it…

I don't understand the context of majors. Who is the customer?

[witchdoctor]

8 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Are the general public going to pay more for MQA for something they can't really hear the difference ?.

 

No one knows the answer yet. Can anyone tell the difference between a spalding golf ball and a teitlist if they weren't labeled? If you were blind folded and you put on a pair of new gym shoes could you tell what brand they were? 
People buy Nikes because why? They can jump higher? Look at the INSANE marketing they do. 

Does the general public pay more for a Nike than a knockoff? A teitlist vs a no name? Can they REALLY tell the performance difference? Duh, the public will often pay more for brand differences than actual performance differences.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

I don't understand the context of majors. Who is the customer?

 

The customer is the three companies that control the recorded music industry ("the majors"). If these companies adopt MQA as the standard distribution format, the rest of the ecosystem falls into line.

[witchdoctor]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

The customer is the three companies that control the recorded music industry ("the majors"). If these companies adopt MQA as the standard distribution format, the rest of the ecosystem falls into line.

These companies have adopted MQA, people still have to pay a premium though. Will marketing help the masses "fall in line"? What type of marketing? CA members have not fallen in line from what I can tell, should the partners spend their marketing dollars here or in People magazine or TV Guide??

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, witchdoctor said:

No one knows the answer yet. Can anyone tell the difference between a spalding golf ball and a teitlist if they weren't labeled? If you were blind folded and you put on a pair of new gym shoes and ran around the clock could you tell what brand they were? 
People buy Nikes because why? They can jump higher? Look at the INSANE marketing they do. 

Does the general public pay more for a Nike than a knockoff? A teitlist vs a no name? Can they REALLY tell the performance difference? Duh, the public will often pay more for differences other than performance.

Hi,

People like brands - that is a given. Listening to music is personal - no one can tell if you are listening to MQA or not. (unless you keep on saying, with earbuds in, hey everyone "i am listening to MQA", every 2 minutes whilst on the train).

I had a portable cassette player which had BBE Sound - did i care ?. No.

All i was interested in was, did it play cassettes.

The same for MQA - people cannot see it, it is not a status symbol (like Nike, Omega, Prada, Versace). It is an option.

No amount of marketing will make it other than that - a more costly option to listen to - when you can get the same for less money (CD Redbook)

Regards,

Shadders.

[kumakuma]

Just now, witchdoctor said:

These companies have adopted MQA, people still have to pay a premium though.

 

Signing up for a "partner program" is not the same as releasing all of your new music only in MQA format. As far as I can tell, actual support for this new format is still somewhat lukewarm at these companies. 

[witchdoctor]

4 minutes ago, Shadders said:

No amount of marketing will make it other than that - a more costly option to listen to - when you can get the same for less money (CD Redbook)

Regards,

Shadders.

Costly options? Have you priced headphones lately? Why are people buying headphones instead of using the ear buds that came with the device? The LG V30 is touting the B&O headphones as a premium headphone form a sonic perspective because why? 
You are stuck in an equation of price=SQ. That isn't even true among audiophile gear.