MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[KeenObserver]

Robert Harley of TAS and John Atkinson of Stereophile jumped on the MQA bandwagon early.  They were obviously impressed with BS (Bob Stuart).  Bob Stuart seems to have become a master of buzzwords.  It seems that he can speak at length and say absolutely nothing.  Harley and Atkinson have staked their magazine's and their personal reputations and legacies on MQA.  In for a penny, in for a pound.  They have no choice but to continue pushing.

 

As I said before, there has to be something fundamentally wrong with MQA when proponents have to constantly spew the same buzzwords and BS and deflections,  over and over.

[wdw]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As of now MQA is only cashing IOUs, but should it succeed Populism will have made it to HiFi. 

 

Chris,

Luv ya but want to clarify, "Populism" in the Steve Bannon sense or just the totally confused world of Kanye West?

wdw

 

Edit: no need to respond, saw your later post...Best

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, wdw said:

 

Chris,

Luv ya but want to clarify, "Populism" in the Steve Bannon sense or just the totally confused world of Kanye West?

wdw

MQA makes as much sense Kanye ?

[wdw]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA makes as much sense Kanye ?

 

As Miguelito first posted (as a challenge to my very Canadian sense of language):

 

TRUDAT !

 

Best,

wdw

[KeenObserver]

WOW!

Closing in on sixty three thousand views!  I believe a week ago it was fifty three thousand.

 

Looks like people want to know the truth about MQA.

[rickca]

I am bored to death with MQA.

[KeenObserver]

32 minutes ago, rickca said:

I am bored to death with MQA.

 

To be honest, so am I.  However, the shills are going to continue spewing their buzzwords and BS, hoping for an audience.  The last thing on earth that I want to see happen to music is for MQA to become widely accepted.  The music loving consumer needs to shun MQA  like the plague.

[FredericV]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There are two advantages with MQA.  The first is transmission at scale of many performances enabled by MQA's folding.  The second is transmitting higher quality sound by applying deblurring filters.  

 

It's the same sound improvement I heard with Peter's files on my own system but now applied in real-time to a London jazz performance.

 

Can you repeat that under a DBT?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

If it's inaudible, why do we care anyway? Why go through the hassle of crypto/drm/folding/unfolding/decrypting/checking DRM to recover ultrasonics which in most live venues are completely gone anyway.

Live HTTP streaming in flac should already do the trick., no need for MQA.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There are two advantages with MQA.  The first is transmission at scale of many performances enabled by MQA's folding.  The second is transmitting higher quality sound by applying deblurring filters.  

 

It's the same sound improvement I heard with Peter's files on my own system but now applied in real-time to a London jazz performance.

Always the same nonsense based on your flawed, sighted listening tests - which are meaningless to anyone but you. Zero need for MQA to stream efficiently. It can be done better with dithered flac. Higher quality sound by applying deblurring filters? Really? 

[Shadders]

8 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Yea MQA, if "deblurring" is real, show us the math! ?

[mansr]

6 hours ago, FredericV said:

Live HTTP streaming in flac should already do the trick., no need for MQA.

Live streaming up to a few Mbps is child's play these days. Those MQA demos are wholly unremarkable, especially since they are streamed only to a single receiver. The real challenge is streaming to millions of people in different locations at the same time. That requires a decent distribution network (CDN), which is of course also a solved problem.

[scottsol]

12 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

As I said before, there has to be something fundamentally wrong with MQA when proponents have to constantly spew the same buzzwords and BS and deflections,  over and over.

 

By this “logic” we could say that there must be something fundamentally wrong with the anti MQA position since the same arguments against MQA are repeated over and over.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, scottsol said:

 

By this “logic” we could say that there must be something fundamentally wrong with the anti MQA position since the same arguments against MQA are repeated over and over.

Not really because the anti-MQA position doesn't use buzzwords, BS, or deflections. They use science and facts most of the time. 

[mav52]

9 hours ago, firedog said:

Always the same nonsense based on your flawed, sighted listening tests - which are meaningless to anyone but you. Zero need for MQA to stream efficiently. It can be done better with dithered flac. Higher quality sound by applying deblurring filters? Really? 

 

True, Lee just keeps on hitting that repeat button and out it comes. 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, mav52 said:

 

True, Lee just keeps on hitting that repeat button and out it comes. 

 

He's not even a real boy - he's a Russian MQA spam bot

[MikeyFresh]

35 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not really because the anti-MQA position doesn't use buzzwords, BS, or deflections. They use science and facts most of the time. 

 

Exactly, and the burden of proof actually lies with the MQA cadre. It is they who seek market acceptance/buy-in for this licensing and DRM scheme.

 

They are trying to sell us on something new, supposedly sonically better, solving problems and existing issues with the current music distribution and playback landscape. They wish to hijack the entire thing, yet have provided nothing at all of substance to support why anyone should take Master Quality Adulterated/DRM for anything but what it truly is, a money grab licensing play complete with record label complicity in order to employ Trojan Horse DRM.

 

They've failed to prove it is anything else, including recently with that ho-hummer "interview" of BS on AudioStream, yet another failure to answer any of the long standing questions posed on this forum and elsewhere that have unfortunately uncomfortable/inconvenient answers for MQA. So they simply don't answer, and in so doing have not met the burden of proof necessary for others to go along merrily with their proposal to upend the music distribution and playback model currently in place.

[Rt66indierock]

13 hours ago, rickca said:

I am bored to death with MQA.

 

I understand but MQA Ltd's 2016 financial statements were recently restated which lead me to asking Mike Jbara (CEO MQA Ltd) about the labels financial commitment to MQA. Yesterday a second (amended) filing of a statement capital following an allocation of shares  showed up on the Companies House website. Today two more were posted.  They will be interesting reading at least to me.

[mansr]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

I understand but MQA Ltd's 2016 financial statements were recently restated which lead me to asking Mike Jbara (CEO MQA Ltd) about the labels financial commitment to MQA. Yesterday a second (amended) filing of a statement capital following an allocation of shares  showed up on the Companies House website. Today two more were posted.  They will be interesting reading at least to me.

Sounds like someone's being creative with the books.

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, mav52 said:

 

True, Lee just keeps on hitting that repeat button and out it comes. 

 

 

 

[rickca]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

They will be interesting reading at least to me.

OK sure I'm still interested in the MQA financials.

[Thuaveta]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Sounds like someone's being creative with the books.

 

[Hugo9000]

6 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

 

I haven't seen these in years, but I think this is the required response.  ?

[mav52]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

 

Yep. Stuck on repeat 

[asdf1000]

On 11/6/2018 at 1:40 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA makes as much sense Kanye ?

 

Ha, current Kanye yes. CD / Late Reg / Graduation Kanye made a lot of sense!

 

That was a long time ago though ?

[Magnaryder]

 

While I might be WAAY off here, there is some information that might bring the conversation into perspective 

 

I guess a little background is required to reference Mr. Atkinson's remarks about Bob Carver. 

 

For those unaware of the body of work
 

Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he’d duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines accepted the challenge. We'll concern ourselves with Stereophile

 

The objective was to make the two amplifiers sound absolutely identical, or at least similar enough in sound that none of us could tell one from the other with better than 50% (pure chance) consistency.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge#BGvbTXCZstGTCj1u.99

 

The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment in their own listening room.

 

from the Challenge: "After the second day of listening to his final design, we threw in the towel and conceded Bob the bout." 
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge-page-4#gjfGTsvQog7G6iAU.99

 

U.S. Patent 3,727,148 Amplifier with Protective Energy Limiter Circuit Components, filed January 1972, issued April 1973

U.S. Patent 3,989,897 Method and Apparatus for Reducing Noise Content in Audio Signals, filed October 1974, issued November 1976 (auto-correlator noise reduction)

U.S. Patent 4,218,585 Dimensional Sound Producing Apparatus and Method, filed April 1979, issued August 1980 (sonic holography)

• U.S. Patent 4,218,660 Audio Amplifier and Method of Operating Same, filed November 1978, issued August 1980 (magnetic field coil power amplifier)
• U.S. Patent 4,309,570 Dimensional Sound Recording and Apparatus and Method for Producing the Same, filed April 1979, issued January 1982
• U.S. Patent 4,415,768 Tuning Apparatus and Method, filed May 1981, issued November 1983
• U.S. Patent 4,4,450,95 Audio Amplifier, filed February 1982, issued April 1984
• U.S. Patent 4,457,012 FM Stereo Apparatus and Method, filed June 1982, issued June 1984 (asymmetrical charge coupled stereo detector)
• U.S. Patent 4,484,150 High Efficiency, Light Weight Audio Amplifier and Power Supply, filed September 1982, issued November 1984
• U.S. Patent 4,586,002 Audio Amplifying Apparatus and Method, filed June 1984, issued April 1986
• U.S. Patent 4,808,946 Lightweight, High Power Audio Amplifier and Power Supply, filed December 1986, issued February 1989
• U.S. Patent 4,815,141 Apparatus and Methods for Removing Unwanted Components from a Communications Signal, filed December 1986, issued March 1989
• U.S. Patent 5,748,753 High Power Audio Subwoofer, filed January 1996, issued May 1998
• U.S. Patent 5,937,074 High Back EMF, High Pressure Subwoofer, filed August 1997, issued August 1999
• U.S. Patent 6,166,605 Integrated Audio Amplifier, filed September 1998, issued December 2000

 

Bob Carver may have single-handedly debunked any number of theories about sound quality by using physics, blind and double-blind testing and unbiased measurements

 

at some cost, personally and professionally.... 

 

 

 

Seriously......who ya gonna believe

 

 

then there's this...sounds a bit familiar. Admittedly its dated, but there is such a familiar thread running through these 2 conversations that I gotta wonder.....since some of the players are the same

 

 

From Stereophile: Dynagroove

 

This, of course, is the old story all over again. The serious listener, who listens to music instead of using it as a pleasant background for conversation, is a nobody as far as the record industry is concerned, and does not warrant its consideration.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/95/index.html#JBW5cqcTZ813B48s.99

 

..........where the recorded signal was pre-distorted and dynamically equalized to compensate for the poor performance of cheap phonograph players. "Issue 5...revealed most of RCA Victor's 'revolutionary' new system as nothing more than a sophisticated way of bringing higher fi to record buyers who don't care enough about hi-fi to invest in a decent playback system." 
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/95/index.html#JBW5cqcTZ813B48s.99

 

For the American record manufacturers, we suggest a premium line of stereo disc releases, paralleling the releases they now put out for the mass market, but cut with full dynamic range, full frequency range, and miked so as to produce the best stereo illusion when reproduced through speakers with adequate spacing between them. We, personally, would be happy to pay a buck or so more for recordings that would justify the expenditures we have made on high-fidelity equipment, and if the premium line wouldn't play on the mass-market phonographs, the customers might start asking some of the right questions. Such as, why won't a premium disc play on my Magnificent Console?
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/95/index.html#JBW5cqcTZ813B48s.99

 

 

SSDifferentCentury?

 

ray