Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[Rt66indierock]

You have to love footnote 10.

[Rt66indierock]

33 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

While I certainly wish "the consumer is always right", practical examples of consumer power are not as plentiful as this dogma would suggest.  Monopolies, oligopolies, and mostly unchecked corporate power have been steadily chipping away at the consumer's once formidable "power of the pocketbook".  The same record labels that scoff at audiophiles as insufficiently numerous to appreciably affect sales figures have all invested in MQA.  That single fact speaks volumes about what the labels believe MQA represents.  And because the labels are an oligopoly, consumers have no power to dissuade them from the folly of MQA.

 

IMHO, believing otherwise is demonstrably naive based on the well documented predation of the record labels and their seeming contempt for consumers of their product.

 

The labels haven't  invested a significant amount of money in MQA. How many times do I have repeat it?

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Any idea of how much?  Just trying to divine the threshold of "significant" investment.

 

The 2016 MQA Ltd Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows shows all capital contributions to be less than 60,000 Pounds. That is the year the labels got their equity and some employees as well. That is not significant to me when the 2015 capital contributions were just over 14,250,000 Pounds.

[Rt66indierock]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hey @Rt66indierock - Anything in the latest trove of Spotify documents about MQA?

 

I have the IPA from the SEC. Nothing in the first 50 pages in fact there is more emphasis on advertising and the free tier than I expected. Best line so far we have paid artists and labels more than 8 billion. Further into the document they talk about accounting issues concerning royalties and those pesky lawsuits. It is a great read so far.

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, Chiger Yelam said:

It always worries me when I see rhetorical tricks being used to enhance an argument. I see no reason to mistrust the audiophile press on this issue as it is their job to give informed and unbiased reviews and there are clear attempts in this article to undermine trust in these reviews. Claiming that past or previous links to the industry in someway mean that they are incapable of doing their current jobs professionally strike me as a stretch. As to whether they "push" (author's quotes) MQA, well only in so much as they "push" any other product they give a good review to. Additionally just because the author has no industry affiliations does not make him/her somehow more trustworthy or unbiased; personally I trust someone more if they make their name and resume known rather than hiding behind anonymity.

If the author is entirely happy with the recent state of computer audio playback then fine, many of us are not and welcome innovative solutions which offer greater choice. This is my main objection to this article. If I want higher resolution sound and am sensible enough to ask my local HiFi retailer to audition new equipment (and can be trusted to make up my own mind) before I buy then what is the problem? The "internet blind test" put forward as evidence by our author is an insult to our intelligence.

I don't see MQA taking a monopoly position here, legacy codec will still be available and alternative improved products may emerge. If MQA and like minded innovators are undermined and ultimately fail then I fear we will be left with genuinely inferior products.

 

Chigar, I see no reason to trust the audio press either.  This quote is  from my Dear Jim post on Audio Asylum in the middle of November last year. "On October 21, 2017 you (Jim Austin) said you don’t understand the technology behind MQA and yet you are going to write a series about it?" 

[Rt66indierock]

14 minutes ago, ted_b said:

No reason?  Ad revenue, primarily from audio manufacturers, doesn't cause you to, at least, temper that thought?  I know several of them and trust several, but I also don't trust dozens of them.   It's the same as if CNN were asked to do reviews on Proctor and Gamble products....no way I trust their lack of bias unequivocally.

 

I quoted that. I said there was no reason to trust the press. Even the press I like my attitude is I'll test it my self thanks. 

[Rt66indierock]

59 minutes ago, astromo said:

A great read and a worthwhile addition to the knowledge base to inform the consumer and those who enjoy music.

 

Congratulations to @Archimago for all the hard work to draft the opening essay and to @The Computer Audiophile for engaging with the subject matter.

 

I thought it useful for my own interest to reflect back on Chris' initial listening impressions and views of MQA (with underlining by me for emphasis):

My First 24 Hours With MQA

 

 

That final line was telling. Prophecy or an possibly an underlying expectation that trouble would be unavoidable?

 

As with  @Archimago I'm very interested to read the findings of the McGill University work. I'd also be interested to understand the source of their research funding, so hopefully that is made clear at the time of publication.

 

Thanks for your effort and keep it going. There are many who appreciate the input from people who have access to the resources and technical capability that are simply beyond the average Joe.

 

I don't think Chris had any idea trouble was coming in February 2016.  He might have sensed trouble at RMAF 2016 but I think it was more like a year ago when things started to take off opposing MQA.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

I like to think that my reverse engineering efforts contributed in some small way.

 

Your reverse engineering efforts were invaluable especially to me. Because of them I knew there was nothing new in MQA and could ask questions of people with  MQA NDAs in a way they didn't know what they were telling me. It also meant that the two times I talked with Bob Stuart I could ask questions that would seem simple and straightforward about studio issues like plugins for DAWs and that troubling issue about MQA changing the sound at the Los Angeles Audio Show last year . These questions allowed me figure out what MQA Ltd could and could not deliver and how personnel was allocated since at that time I'd read the financial statements and knew the number of employees they had.

 

But I don't think Chris realized the trouble we were causing until he got a second call from an MQA representative early in 2017 complaining or in Bob's case being vague. 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, realhifi said:

I can’t imagine they would respond to an anonymous “article” on the web. 

 

Well let’s see Kal Rubinson and John Atkinson have posted on this thread. And John has posted in the discussion about this article on Audio Asylum. Jason Victor Serinus, Herb Reichert and Jim Austin aren’t technically knowledgeable enough to comment. That about covers the Stereophile part of the mainstream press. As for The Absolute Sound who is knowledgeable enough to comment? Using a slightly louder different master is called “How to Fool John Darko”. Michael Lavorgna can’t respond because he was banned. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

 

Yes but if DRM is what is attractive about MQA to the labels, none of any of this matters.

 

If the mass market users are forced to MQA by the labels (i.e. their current options disappear) for DRM purposes,  with no price increase to their current Spotify or Apple Music subscriptions, they (the 99%) probably won't care, as long as there is no price increase.

 

We (the 1%) will be the only losers in this 'dooms day' scenario.

 

Watch this interview where he jokes about the possibility of one day removing poorer SQ streaming as an option... 46min to 50min... he's not saying forcing MQA on everyone explicitly there.

 

But in another part of the interview he says Warner are fans of MQA.

 

So as I said, it's all in the labels hands. We (the 1%) don't really matter in the big picture. Especially if DRM is what attracts them.

 

In summary - I thought this dooms day scenario was a wild and improbable idea in my head , until I saw a label Exec joke about it :-)

 

 

 

Probably good to point out I know him and he doesn't work for Warner Music Group anymore. He was out the door at RMAF 2017. 

[Rt66indierock]

9 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Noted but that’s only relevant if we know he or Warner changed their position on MQA in the last 6 months, since that video.

 

Definitely possible, this is a very fluid/dynamic topic atm.

 

 

WMG isn't known for making good business decisions but any labels main focus is stars not formats. I'm not hearing much about anything related to quality lately except for the the guys whose job it is to promote hi-res. 

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Do you work for any of the majors? Or is this based on 2nd hand news?

 

I don't mean that to insult either btw so please don't take offence. But something is either 1st hand news or it's not.

 

 

I'm on the artist and studio side of things from a professional point of view to directly answer your question.  So I interact with A&R people but it isn't the main focus of what I do professionally. I'll have more first hand information this summer after I hit a few festivals.

 

But in all honesty most people in the music business want to talk to me about golf.

[Rt66indierock]

43 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Yes!  I would too!  This MQA discussion is going in circles. Wayyyy more interesting to talk about new irons, etc. 

 

You got the wrong guy. 1985 Ping Eye 2 irons with the original square grooves identified by a raised pat number and others pending in the cavity. These are grandfathered and still legal for me to play in USGA events except the US Open. They have the WRX leading edge grind and were retumbled a slightly darker color with black paint fill instead of white. Lie and loft are custom fit and adjusted by the factory. Shafts are new Dynamic Gold without seams. Grips are old school Royal V Sandwrap grips ribbed.

 

And no the new stuff is not better. Don't get me started on putters and metal woods.

[Rt66indierock]

6 minutes ago, ednaz said:

But, the real question is, how do they SOUND.

 

Actually an excellent point. With a Titleist Pro V1 they sound great to me. What should sound better my Titleist 660 blades (Endo forgings) and Callaway X forged wedges both forged out of 1025 carbon steel sound a bit soft.

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

But can they decode DSD?  What about MQA? (DUCKS)

 

Doesn't matter Spotify is the choice for music on a golf course. Q: do you mind if I play music? A: yes if you don't turn it up.

[Rt66indierock]

8 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I was a caddy for a while in high school (at Cog Hill Golf Course in Lemont, IL) and it turned me off on golf. 

 

What about Tidal? Then you can get that WONDERFUL first unfold

 

Caddying would have turned me off too. A poorly paid pack animal.

 

Out in the world nobody has heard of Tidal much less use it. I've asked all I get is quizzical looks. 

[Rt66indierock]

34 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

I am concerned that we may just run John A. outta town if we continually post strong negatives about him and his magazine.  Consider that he is posting here and we should welcome his participation whereas R. Harley or any of his group of writers would never dare show up to debate any of these issues.  

 

What we actually need is a discussion of who is in majors (baseball) and who isn’t of audio reporting. Specifically is Stereophile still in the top tier of audio reporting or are they an AAA or AA squad?

[Rt66indierock]

On 3/14/2018 at 8:41 AM, Doug Schneider said:

 

IMO, MQA wouldn't have had any traction anywhere had a couple (or few) print and online magazines so enthusiastically promoted it at the beginning. IT types dismissed it, recording engineers had no clue what it was, but a few hi-fi reviewers went so over the top with their praise without even knowing what it really was, it managed to gets some wind in its sails. If the latter hadn't happened, we wouldn't be talking about it today. I firmly belive that. With that in mind, the magazine that did go so over the top wasn't yours -- in fact, it's not even discussed her. Charley Hansen -- the most vocal anti-MQAer there was -- wouldn't even discuss them because, in his words, "they are a lost cause." To many, ComputerAudiophile.com was lumped in that camp. What helped shake that was Chris's insistence not to pull down the "MQA is Vaporware" thread, which, for the longest time, gave the hi-fi world the most in-depth look at another side to a story that most of the print and online press was pretending wasn't there. I know that some wanted to see it gone, but it's there. I just looked -- that thread was started January 2, 2017. Not as long a go as I think it should've started -- January 2, 2016 would have been more like it -- but it's been well over a year now, so credit for that. In the last week, we now have Archimago's article, which is having an enormous impact. 

 

That initial time for MQA promotion began about 3 years ago. You cite recent and current examples of taking a more critical approach. But do you think the first 2.5 years of coverage helped contribute to what Jon Iverson just wrote in your magazine: "I just hope it's not too late"?

 

I know you'll make up some excuse why you won't answer, but I'm sure others will.

 

Doug 
SoundStage!

 

Doug,

The thought process for “MQA is Vaporware” started in June of 2016 after T.H.E. Show Irvine California. The vibe around MQA just felt wrong and the promotion was a bad combination of Golf Channel ads, OS/2’s rollout and the pitches I get from wealth managers.  It took a while to analyze the issues and what was real and what was just marketing without any substance behind it.  Sorry I couldn’t do it quicker.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I can just see the war on pseudonyms beginning now :~) 

 

Or all the MQA press in TEN was just to increase numbers so TEN could sell off the Home Tech Network.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

In the Dutch pro audio world, they translated parts of your article into this summary, in Dutch:

https://www.helios.nl/nieuws/mqa-tegenstellingen-zorgen-en-waarschuwingen

Alpha-audio, one of the Dutch sites specialized in streaming, now also mentioned this translation on their frontpage:

https://www.alpha-audio.nl/2018/06/mqa-ter-discussie-fake-bestandsformaat/

which means "MQA up for debate: fake file format?".

Alpha Audio's Jaap Veenstra interviewed Bob in Munich (which lead to interesting facts disclosed by Bob), but now he's also allowing the research of independent MQA researchers.

 

 

Can we safely conclude we are are not independent MQA researchers?

[Rt66indierock]

On 12/30/2018 at 5:17 AM, mansr said:

I tried reaching Jim Morrison for a comment, but he has not yet replied.

 

Ray Manzarek hasn't gotten back to me either.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

And from the point of view of MQA Ltd they are just giving the record labels options. If the labels stop releasing non-MQA material then MQA Ltd can just say it isn’t their decision, it’s the labels’ decision. MQA Ltd can’t lose. 

 

You are forgetting the labels own enough of MQA Ltd to exert significant influence and I doubt the primary investor would disagree with them.