MQA and the Sponsor Wars

[FredericV]

This thread has the exact same canned articles spread by other MQA shills, one of them was recently banned here.

These MQA marketing repeaters even have their own secret facebook group with cherry picked articles about neuroscience and every new MQA product & event coming out, as if those articles were fed to the proxy managing this group by someone inside MQA.

The group starts with one member posting a lot of neuroscience articles in the hope other members will find the admin of the group credible.This is the classic "external authority" strategy. Admin uses a wingman. These days the group migrated into rehashed old MQA articles from other parrots and paid press / hired guns / hired studio engineers, fanboyism and posting screenshots of streaming apps with MQA albums. The active members in topics are < 10. A lot of resellers, press and even Bob and MQA's CEO are in the group.

They did not do much effort in screening those who were invited.

Why does MQA need a closed invite-only group?

Maybe it's time WitchDoctor discloses his full affiliation.

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, witchdoctor said:

This reviewer did extensive listening and comparison tests watch this first and then do your own listening tests. Note that he mentions the political side that has nothing to do with the SQ side. There is also a Mytek Brooklyn thread here you should check out:

 

 

 

This reviewer is part of the private Facebook group that promotes MQA, as reported by Charles Hansen in the MQA is vapourware thread. Nothing the people in Bob Stuart's group say can be taken at face value. They are active promoters and salesmen of MQA. 

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

Objectivley false. MQA is bringing albums into hi-res that would otherwise not be — that, literally by itself, makes MQA desirable. Also it seeks to improve audio playback quality and mastering quality, also desirable features.

 

Having MQA as a feature is all upside with no downside.

Those albums should be released period. MQA does not deserve credit for those albums being released; they would probably have been released anyway. New albums are released in Hi res every week.

 

Now if new albums are released only on MQA, then it is obvious record labels are happy with the possible DRM capabilities of MQA. That is a downside!

 

As you say, MQA SEEKS to improve playback and mastering. That doesn't mean it succeeds. 

[NOMBEDES]

On 10/29/2017 at 10:53 AM, witchdoctor said:

This thread is really more about the marketing aspect of MQA than the technical aspect. I am posting this as a resource but really don't want to derail the thread. If you want more details you can download the manual or call Mytek. This is info about the Brooklyn ADC converter used in most MQA mastering along with the Brooklyn Mytek Pro DAC.
Brooklyn ADC is the first commercially available ADC to feature built in MQA Kernel (TM) to be used for mastering to MQA streaming format. Together with the Brooklyn DAC , there is a set of mastering converters capable of capturing the finest details of music like never before with practical workflow enabling easy mastering in a variety of Hi-Res formats, including MQA. Brooklyn ADC offers a choice of input flavors: electronic line level or passive nickel transformer as well as optional high perfomance mic or phono input.

 

https://mytekdigital.com/brooklyn-adc/#reviews

 

 

Sorry, I don't do marketing.  I am only interested in sound quality.  If a company wants to include MQA capability in their products, that is fine with me.  (and, indeed, I can not imagine why anyone would care what I think)

 

Since I can't often discern the difference between so called hi rez and redbook, I doubt if I will hear any MQA artifact(s).

 

 

 

[Shadders]

Hi,

I can see why there are astro-turfers and shills.

The stakes for MQA Ltd are extremely high. If MQA is a success, they could end up with control of the entire audio chain and recordings - if the DRM aspects come to fruition, and there are no other formats apart from MQA.

Such control, whilst benefiting the record labels (perceived removal of piracy) will generate exorbitant revenue/profit for MQA Ltd.

MQA should proliferate or decline based on its benefit to the listener.

But then, given the untrue statements regarding its design, proven to be false by people on this site and others, MQA is obviously not about sound quality.

It is about DRM - and one can see the subscription models appearing in the software world, to understand that the constant stream of revenue is preferred to single licence purchases (that last forever for the customer).

If MQA was just about streaming, then MQA could replace MP3, and MQA Ltd should be happy with the revenue generated from that, and extra revenue from high resolution capable DAC sales. Then again, MP3 is licence free, so perhaps MQA is stuck in the sector of high resolution only ?

I cannot see DRM being successful unless MQA becomes the only format offered by streaming or sales.

So, if i were MQA Ltd, i would want all negative opinions of MQA quashed, or disrupted - so we are back to shills i suppose.

The decline of hifi as a hobby, may be of benefit to MQA, as most people are not bothered about sound quality, and MQA+DRM could easily be slipped into the hifi chain without much objection. I suppose

Regards,

Shadders.

[GUTB]

Is the entire audiophile press also a part of the fake news shill astroturf campaign?

[Shadders]

Just now, GUTB said:

Is the entire audiophile press also a part of the fake news shill astroturf campaign?

HI,

I haven't a clue. I only see negative comments on forums, by people who have experienced MQA, or have technical concerns, and who have exposed the false statements on MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.

[The Computer Audiophile]

54 minutes ago, Shadders said:

MQA should proliferate or decline based on its benefit to the listener.

 

If only this were true about any product in the history of the human race. 

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

If only this were true about any product in the history of the human race. 

Hi,

I know - the best does not always win through.

Apologies for the rambling post.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Consumerism is not about what the consumer desires to purchase.  It's about what the consumer can be persuaded to purchase.

[NOMBEDES]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Consumerism is not about what the consumer desires to purchase.  It's about what the consumer can be persuaded to purchase.

 

I desire all sorts of nice things.   Expensive motor cars, watches, Pass amplification.  I could be persuaded to purchase almost anything if I could afford it.

 

MQA will just be another logo printed on top of the box, I doubt most consumers will have any idea what it is, or if it is working or not.

[NOMBEDES]

John le Carre regarding hacks/shills (the press in the age of Murdoch):

 

"nothing is more predictable than the media's parroting of its own fictions and the terror of each competitor that it will be scooped by the others, whether or not the story is true, because quite frankly, dears, in the news game these days, we don't have the staff, time, interest, energy, literacy or minimal sense of responsibility to check our facts by any means except calling up whatever has been written by other hacks on the same subject and repeating it as gospel."

 

From the Tailor of Panama, Knopf, 1996

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

25 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

I desire all sorts of nice things.

 

Sure, buy why?

 

 

[witchdoctor]

Since we are talking about marketing what MQA partner should be the next sponsor of CA and why? Should it be high-end, mid-fi, or a portable device company? A portable device has a unique ability to reach the mass market unlike a high end DAC.

LG has tried to create competitive advantage by offering an "audiophile" MQA phone, the LG V30. Onkyo offers MQA downloads on its hirez site and has an MQA capable portable device. Sony is converting their catalog to MQA, has recording artists producing new albums in MQA and also offers an MQA portable device. 

The WD thinks Sony would be a good fit but there are many MQA partners. Anyone have an idea?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I know - the best does not always win through.

Apologies for the rambling post.

Regards,

Shadders.

No worries. I really wish the best products won, but the market doesn't consult me :~)

[witchdoctor]

4 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

 

Sorry, I don't do marketing.  I am only interested in sound quality.  If a company wants to include MQA capability in their products, that is fine with me.  (and, indeed, I can not imagine why anyone would care what I think)

 

Since I can't often discern the difference between so called hi rez and redbook, I doubt if I will hear any MQA artifact(s).

 

 

 

Do you have a portable device for music?

[Hifi Bob]

The effectiveness of MQA’s marketing can be seen in the graph below.

 

MQA going viral...? Er, it’s a flat line.

 

With interest in MQA lagging behind DSD, surround sound, FLAC, and even turntables, its chances of mainstream success are remote at best.

 

[Rt66indierock]

18 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Since we are talking about marketing what MQA partner should be the next sponsor of CA and why? Should it be high-end, mid-fi, or a portable device company? A portable device has a unique ability to reach the mass market unlike a high end DAC.

LG has tried to create competitive advantage by offering an "audiophile" MQA phone, the LG V30. Onkyo offers MQA downloads on its hirez site and has an MQA capable portable device. Sony is converting their catalog to MQA, has recording artists producing new albums in MQA and also offers an MQA portable device. 

The WD thinks Sony would be a good fit but there are many MQA partners. Anyone have an idea?

 

 

I like the idea of the LG V30 since it won’t play Tidal MQA tracks.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Since we are talking about marketing what MQA partner should be the next sponsor of CA and why? Should it be high-end, mid-fi, or a portable device company? A portable device has a unique ability to reach the mass market unlike a high end DAC.

LG has tried to create competitive advantage by offering an "audiophile" MQA phone, the LG V30. Onkyo offers MQA downloads on its hirez site and has an MQA capable portable device. Sony is converting their catalog to MQA, has recording artists producing new albums in MQA and also offers an MQA portable device. 

The WD thinks Sony would be a good fit but there are many MQA partners. Anyone have an idea?

Hi,

MQA is just an option people add to their equipment.

 

If i were to design and make a Home Theatre Processor, i would have to sign an NDA with Dolby and/or DTS, so as to obtain the code from the DSP manufacturer, to decode Dolby and/or DTS, and put the label/graphic on the front with Dolby/DTS. Even in this case i would not term the Home Cinema Processor manufacturer as a partner, despite that the whole reason for the home cinema processor is to implement Dolby/DTS. That is, Dolby/DTS is the end to end solution.

 

With regards to DAC's, each manufacturer has its own design, own choice of DAC IC, or discrete implementation of a DAC. They can implement their own filters, analogue output stage, clock circuits etc. In this instance, MQA is an OPTION. Some manufacturers have elected to include the option, and others have declined.

 

What is MQA ??? It is, in its simplest form, a lossy coding scheme and a filter. That's it. Nothing more than a bit of processing, and a set of numbers (filter coefficients).

 

What MQA are trying to do is create a closed end to end solution (with no options), to compete with, or replace an existing open solution that has many options.

 

So, Sony, LG, and any other manufacturer are not partners, they are as per the DAC manufacturers, equipment providers that may include an option, such as MQA.

 

MQA is currently aimed at high resolution, and no one cares about high resolution - except audio buffs. Manufacturers such as LG, Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo etc., don't care about MQA, but they add it because everyone else is doing it, competition is fierce, and it just might tip a customer to buy the other brand, if they don't offer it. Just a tick box exercise.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[beetlemania]

12 minutes ago, Hifi Bob said:

The effectiveness of MQA’s marketing can be seen in the graph below.

 

MQA going viral...? Er, it’s a flat line.

 

With interest in MQA lagging behind DSD, surround sound, FLAC, and even turntables, its chances of mainstream success are remote at best.

 

But look at that recent uptick!

 

Or is that just witchdoctor's posts in this thread?

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

But look at that recent uptick!

 

Or is that just witchdoctor's posts in this thread?

 

Not just in this thread, or even this forum.  WD is an MQA spamming machine!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Maybe you are over thinking this. If MQA was so much better than standard high resolution, the majority will have preferred MQA, by a significant margin.

This test tells us that high resolution is no different to MQA, which is probably just the same as a well produced CD redbook. Who knows, but if there was such a marked difference, or benefit, the tests will have shown this.

In addition, MQA threads on other forums, there are people who say that they like MQA, and others stating that they didn't think there was any difference or that it did not sound better.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Hi Shaders,

I'm not a statistician but deal with research papers reasonably often, so just really throwing in my 2 cents on not making firm conclusions based on interpretation of the stats and otherwise fairly limited data. FWIW I remain skeptical about MQA and the Archimago results lend support to that skepticism.

 

However I dont think the data available is such that convinces me on a definitive conclusion either way - its a suggestion not conclusion - as in "the test results suggest". MQA could be better or worse or the same. If I were playing the devil's advocate I could say, well I should try MQA coz I might be one of the ones that prefer it. You see, as I understand it, there is a *possibility* that there is a difference and the test group sorted themselves correctly 50/50 by genuine preference and this might be reproducible. The key being reproducible as mentioned in my first post. So I downloaded the test files, listened unsighted (my wife doing the A/B) and I had a reasonably confident preference for each of the 3 test tracks pairs - PCM 3 of 3!   FWIW.

 

Cheers

David

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Shadders said:

If i were to design and make a Home Theatre Processor, i would have to sign an NDA with Dolby and/or DTS, so as to obtain the code from the DSP manufacturer, to decode Dolby and/or DTS, and put the label/graphic on the front with Dolby/DTS.

Actually, the code is typically supplied by a third party (I have worked on such third-party code). You pay to use the logos and for conformance testing. It is also worth noting that Dolby and DTS made possible good quality surround sound on DVD. Uncompressed audio would have used up too much of the available bit rate. MQA is vying for much more control without offering any real benefit.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Actually, the code is typically supplied by a third party (I have worked on such third-party code). You pay to use the logos and for conformance testing. It is also worth noting that Dolby and DTS made possible good quality surround sound on DVD. Uncompressed audio would have used up too much of the available bit rate. MQA is vying for much more control without offering any real benefit.

Hi mansr,

I spoke to Analog Device, and they stated which DSP processor to use, and they supplied the code.

Most DVD discs do offer 2.0 sound - linear audio, but Blu-Ray seem to be surround sound only. Essentially surround sound is a closed solution - Dolby or DTS.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

If a particular cancer treatment has a 50% chance of working, should we abandon all other treatments, even if they are known to be more effective? That's what MQA is asking.

 

Not what I'm saying but I think you know that. It is hard to eliminate bias when looking at test results and people make interpretations that suit their objective, rather than objective interpretations.

 

A 50% chance of cancer cure for treatment A is lousy if treatment B offers 80%. It is wonderful news about treatment A if all other treatments have failed. Statistical significance is not the same as clinical significance. The same principles apply to other research including audio.

 

*I* prefer PCM to MQA. I'm just remaining impartial as to what the test results (Archimago) have *suggested*, not twist it to suit my view.