MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

I disagree. In some matters, there is no place for "balance." This includes those where an objective truth can be established. For example, men did land on the moon. That some lunatics insist otherwise does not make the notion of a "balanced" view or "middle ground" the least bit meaningful. Would you call those who believe the moon landings really took place extremists? What would a non-extreme position look like?

 

With MQA, every conceivable technical assessment finds it lacking compared to alternatives. The only thing it does uniquely is produce an "end to end" flow of cash into Stuart's pockets. All the alleged benefits to others are either false ("time domain" nonsense, etc.) or can be achieved more efficiently using royalty-free methods. Again, seeing the truth for what it is cannot be considered extremist.

 

If MQA actually delivered on even one of its claims, things would be different. Then it would be possible to consider a trade-off. As it stands, there is no trade in adopting MQA, only off.

Yes, but don't forget, it is not just sh!t, it is quality sh!t.

[Shadders]

13 hours ago, Archimago said:

I'm sure you guys can think of more... I do hope that a representative for MQA is on hand to answer for some of these rather straightforward questions/issues even if a bit uncomfortable as they may arise!

Hi,

The key stated benefit of MQA is that it reverses dispersion (temporal blur), so we hear what the artist intended.

1. Dispersion CANNOT be reversed. You can equalise to mitigate for the effect, but it cannot be reversed once implemented. (An analogy is as if you have mixed 16 distinct colours into one, and MQA are claiming they can separate the colours).
2. The leaky filters introduce dispersion (they are non linear), which is exactly what MQA is stated to reverse. MQA is an Oxymoron in its definition ?

If anyone has a technical paper that shows how dispersion can be reversed - then please provide it, or state that you disagree that dispersion cannot be reversed. I am happy to be proved wrong on this. So, the question could be, why has MQA been able to reverse dispersion, yet the entire telecommunications industry cannot do this ? Reversing dispersion is an astounding achievement, and a solution is worth so much more money than the music industry revenue percentage.

 

Another question - is that it seems that Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, Cirrus Electronics et al, all have got it wrong with regards to ADC's. Has MQA notified these companies that their products have serious design flaws, and if not, why not ? Involving these professional companies in the discussion will ensure that MQA is assessed, and this may be of a benefit in exposing MQA as a false solution.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Where is this stated?

Hi,

The MQA paper :

A Hierarchical Approach to Archiving and Distribution

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17501

 

States that dispersion is blur :

"When considering the frequency and time responses of an end-to-end distribution channel, we must bear in mind that time dispersion or ‘blur’ can build up through a cascade of otherwise blameless components. Figure 3
illustrates the response of a cascade built up to eight stages, each with a 2nd-order roll-off at 30 kHz, possibly representing a microphone, preamplifier, mixer,...."

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/musingsmeasurements-on-blurring-and-why.html#more

 

Deblurring is what is stated to be MQA's purpose.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

They never state that their method fixes it.

Hi,

OK- so all the discussion on deblurring is wrong ? De-blurring is a non-existent issue created by the press ?

 

If that is the case, and MQA does not deblur, and their (MQA's) non-linear phase filters add dispersion, then MQA is the cause of blur/dispersion, and not the end-to-end solution it is stated to be.

 

Therefore, the revised question would be, if MQA cannot deblur, and MQA filters are non-linear which introduce dispersion which is greater than linear filters, then MQA distorts the music rather than ensures it is accurate ???

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

9 minutes ago, Fokus said:

We've been through this before. If not here then on another forum. What MQA call

'dispersion' is any widening of a channel's impulse response, be it linear phase

or not. They fight it by replacing all filters in the channel with slow roll-off filters,

in some cases even no filters, in order to obtain a more compact impulse response.

Hi,

Not sure what the point is you are making. Since we do not listen to impulse responses, and music should be band limited on a CD etc., any non-linear filter has a worse effect than a linear filter in regards to dispersion. By MQA using non-linear filters, although they may have little memory (taps), still does not stop them from being non-linear.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Archimago said:

Yeah...

 

Whatever the hell MQA is doing in the time domain, it doesn't seem to work and should be taken as such until they prove something of value!

 

Where's Bob Stuart when we really need him?! ?

 

Dahn the pub...

 

(you have to say the above with a cockney accent).

[Shadders]

This is the MQA mob outside the venue lecture :

[Shadders]

11 minutes ago, Derek Hughes said:

To all

I've watched the video and all I can say is that unless you were there you got about 10% of the audience participation, ask Lee Scoggins and Rajiv. That's the fault of all of us, the moderator, me, the audience and the camera and mic folks.  Chris did his best in a very difficult situation and yes, with some hostile feedback from the audience including me (yes, I am the Brit in the blue T shirt) . For those of you mocking me, go ahead, for those of you mocking Edwin, the guy sitting next to me, you disgust me. It is obvious that he is blind, his white cane is in full view. By the way Brinkmanship I've added your clip to my profile, the grandkids love it.

 

At the end of the day the seminar was about the pros and cons of MQA, that's what Chris tried to present. In MY OPINION, that was not what his presentation was, it was biased against MQA, that is why he got the reaction that he did. Again in MY OPINION, he stated that it would be unbiased and it wasn't. I am in touch with Chris privately and I think we are good.

 

As to my position on MQA. I listen to MQA tracks on Tidal and  Red Book tracks on Tidal. I enjoy both and I love Tidal as a vehicle for me to listen to music I know and, to discover new music. Let  me give you an example, I wandered around RMAF with Shazam in hand. I got home and built a Tidal playlist of the Shazam tracks, it's great to listen to. Once Qobuz becomes available I'll sign up for it and then decide if I stay with one or go with both. I can not defend or support MQA technically, I don't have the necessary skills. At least one of you, maybe more, have said that they hope Tidal fails because of their support for MQA, I don't. Tidal and MQA will survive or fail based on customer demand and their finances. 

 

I have really enjoyed my time reading CA, I post very little but I have gotten a lot from it. I really enjoyed the bar time with Chris and other CA members at both Axpona and RMAF. Most of you are a good bunch and Chris has built a great brand and and is enjoying the success of his labors. I'm sure that it will continue. 

Hi,

The white stick is not noticeable until the end when it is moved. Yourself notices it, because you know it is there.

 

With regards to the pro's and cons, MQA do not publish any cons, so maybe, the "negative" aspects of the presentation were to balance the misinformation of MQA Ltd ? I did not see any cons - only exposure of the misinformation from MQA Ltd.  The slides are available on this web site - so you can see and challenge the con's if you so desire.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Derek Hughes said:

Go to minute 33 and watch it again, the white cane is clearly visible. I've been in touch with Chris privately and I'll discuss his presentation with him privately if he wants to. As I said above, unless you were in the room you got about 10% of the audience participation.

Derek 

Hi,

The reason you are aware of the white stick is because you know it is there. For someone who is not really paying attention, it is very easily missed. People on this site are not that nasty.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Chris' slide show was felt to be unfair by the MQA team.  Ken told me that they felt it ignored the emails and other materials they had sent over.

Hi,

If the evidence presented by the slide show, showed that MQA was fraudulent, then the MQA position is inherent in the slides.

 

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I personally felt it was heavily slanted against MQA, such as the point on DRM.  So that is why I asked if there was even one instance of a file having DRM.  Chris was gracious and agreed with me on that point.  So I give Chris credit on that.

The modules or designs of the MQA system - every implementation, has a DRM chip ???. If so, then what is a DRM chip doing, if there is no DRM ?

 

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 Ken has an issue with Archimago being anonymous.  I am less bothered by this but I feel he has a good point.  Hiding behind a user ID is unnecessary and cowardly when good people are trying to have an honest debate.

Archimago is not anonymous in that you can contact the person. It is called a pseudonym.

 

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I had never met Mike before but wound up having a discussion and he comes across are very experienced in the industry and genuinely trying to make a better music world

As per the discussions on this web site, there is no blur (dispersion) and hence no need for MQA. If MQA claims that it can de-blur (reverse dispersion) then this is a blatant lie. It is not possible. No need for lossy compression as existing lossless is adequate. So, how is a fraudulent system with DRM making the music world better ?

 

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

He put together a decent slide show which captured most of the pros and cons.  I personally think it could have been far more objective (and presented at least some of the emails from Bob) but at least he tried and I especially liked the slides around the theme of it not being a life or death discussion.

It was clear from the slide set, that MQA claims were presented, and the correction to the fraudulent claims were shown.

 

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 His pounding on the table was just for emphasis. It's not something I see a lot in the U.S. but I see it all the time in the UK so I think that's just a cultural thing.

After 34 years working in technology, no one in the UK behaves like that. If they did, then we would request the assistance of the nurse.

 

MQA has been thoroughly debunked, and it offers the consumer no benefit at all. The technical claims by MQA are false, you have bee notified of these with them explained to you in detail on this site.

 

As an aside, what MQA Ltd are claiming, is that their system is correcting every recording system where the manufacturers of the ADC's, who have many 1,000's of years experience, have all got it wrong. Do you think this is a true statement, or plausible that the industry engineers have got it wrong for such a long time  ?

 

Or - how can you continue to believe the MQA claims, when the industry has so many innovative engineers, and close associations with universities for research, and none of the issues have been a problem ?

 

Or - what do you know, which causes you to believe everything about MQA as being correct ?. What information is in your head that causes you to make the decision that MQA is addressing the failings of the industry ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Most people talking to me are under NDA with MQA but believe so strongly that it’s a scam they will call me up to tell the truth

Hi,

As with other news in the US (Weinstein etc) it seems very worrying that criminal behaviour can be covered up using NDA's.

 

I do not understand why the law allows criminality to be covered up through legal agreements.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don’t think it’s helpful to call this “criminal.” First, legally it’s not. Second, it allows people to dismiss whatever you might have to say that’s substantive. At least for me, substantive discussion, particularly about technical points, is what’s most helpful regarding MQA.

Hi Jud,

So scams are legal in the US. Live and learn i suppose.

EDIT :

I checked this on the web :

https://www.quora.com/How-illegal-is-scamming

Is MQA lying to the customers if they claim it is what the artist intended or heard, when it is not ?. This would be illegal. Hence criminal.

 

My interpretation is, if MQA have lied about any of the claims etc., then they have broken the law.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

43 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Only if you are installed as President.

 

I think Jud was saying that the case that MQA rises to the legal definition of scam (consumer fraud) is a difficult one to make, and there is no legal finding to justify that claim.

 

Compared to all of the overt consumer fraud in this hobby, I have to agree, while noting "we have not yet been convicted" is not a great marketing slogan.

Hi,

I get the consumer fraud that already exists - but then, they do not make claims that can disproven - they generally let the buyer make their own mind up - they just term their product special, or audiophile.

 

If MQA have made specific claims - and it seems that the reverse engineering has shown many lies - then surely these are a basis for formulating a legal challenge to MQA ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

"artist" is a word open to lots of interpretation. You could more or less legitimately assign it to anyone involved in a meaningful way in the recording, mixing, and mastering of an album. 
Many musicians have little or zero input about what happens once they've played their bit in a studio and you could debate who the "artist" is who is most responsible for the final product released to the consumer. 

Hi,

Does not need to be only what the artist heard - can be the technical aspects which are false. I am not sure that the vagueness is there for MQA as per other Hifi products.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Does the word irony even resonate here?

[Shadders]

An even better one....

[Shadders]

Just now, BigAlMc said:

Nah, the first one nailed it! Full points for effort tho.

Hi,

Yes - but i saw the latter one, and it was funny in its own right. Could not let people not see it.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

33 minutes ago, rickca said:

And yet more manufacturers sign up to implement MQA.  How does MQA convince these guys?

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/mqa-announces-new-products-and-partners

Hi,

My interpretation is that the manufacturers are informed that DRM is coming to audio for streaming, and that MQA will be the only format streamed, or downloadable in the future - the record labels have signed up to this too. Someone published the MQA investors - which included Sony etc.

 

Whether you like it or not, the record labels are going to implement the same control over audio as per DVD etc. Why should audio be any different ?.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

I chalk it up to dumb momentum.  Streaming providers don't need MQA to implement encryption or any other form of control.  The status quo, where they all implement their own schemes is good enough.  Why would they want to pay MQA do what they already do more effectively?

 

I suppose it's possible that these manufacturers have inside information that says that the labels are going to require MQA, but I think this is a stretch of a speculation at this point...

Hi,

I think it is because the record labels decide the future - and a DRM managed business for audio is what the want. Their greed probably makes them concerned that streaming means people can copy the streamed data, and so people will distribute high resolution files - as per napster.

 

If you examine the requirement that each manufacturer has to divulge their design etc., the implementation is quite restricted, so copying the decoded data is difficult.

 

It is just a slow migration to DRM for audio.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Labels? What labels? 

Hi,

As linked below - Sony, Warner, and Universal are shareholders in MQA.

 

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

On the contrary. Intercepting the decoded output from software like the Tidal app or Audirvana is trivial using off the shelf tools.

Hi,

Not every one can do this, and if you have a DAC with MQA designed in - MQA are ensuring it is difficult to offer MQA decoded digital output.

 

Anything is possible - but they are making it hard for most people.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Hi Shadders - Don’t know what your area of expertise is. But imagine you were reading something that a layperson had written, giving their opinion about that area when they were clueless. You might then understand how I feel after 39 years as a US lawyer, reading a layperson’s opinion about a point of US law.

 

Are you a US resident? US law is very much more lenient about marketing hyperbole (or even BS) than the UK, for example.

Hi Jud,

No,  not in the US - the UK. Since i used the internet for US law - i do not know whether we are stricter - but the UK ASA has reprimanded hifi retailers/sellers for false claims etc.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

That proves Jud's point.  I cannot imagine such a reprimand happening in the US market for hifi. 

Hi,

Yes - we do, in the UK have some good consumer laws :

 

"Under EU law, consumers are offered a two-year guarantee in which sellers must repair or replace a faulty or not-fit-for-purpose item, but this right is trumped by the six-year warranty in the UK's own legislation. The right applies to any goods sold in the UK, so online retailers must also comply"

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

17 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

In fact, you would be writing something in your own publication that disputes everything that Chris has said and showing real objective data to prove it.  Yet again, you choose to wank around on here.  It's that simple regardless how you might think. 

Hi,

I do believe the translation of the word "wank" has been misinterpreted when it was exported to the USA, or other.

 

One can have a "wank", which is a rather pleasurable experience. What is the difference between an egg and a "wank" ?. You can beat an egg.

 

One can call another person a "wanker" which is derisory, but in a nice way. Similar to calling someone a "dipstick", it is meant to infer stupidity, or silly behaviour.

 

The term you may wish to use is "fannying around", where this means dilly dallying, or even "prevaricating", with disruptive intent possibly.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, sls said:

3) Streaming is better than CDs

Hi,

I think i am too old. I like to own the music i purchased, so i can play it wherever i like, when i like.

 

Same with gaming - i will always purchase the game physically - so if the hard disk fails, or they turn off the servers, i still have a hard copy. I think CD's will outlive any hard disk - although some pressings may have CD rot.

 

I have seen reports that younger people are not the generation who like to own things - music being one of those. I am prepared to give up living space to store CD's etc.

 

Regards,

Shadders.