MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Sonicularity]

The title of this thread is annoying.  It suggests that much of the research to garner any actual knowledge about this lossy format was somehow only one side of a complete story. That is absolute crap.  There is no middle ground.  There are lies and marking BS and a reality this is continually ignored or side-stepped in an effort to promote a proprietary format that could potentially and critically have a negative impact on consumer interests.

[Sonicularity]

Here is the link to the video.

 

 

[Sonicularity]

"If it's inaudible do we care at the end of the day?"

-Mike Jbara, CEO of MQA

 

Can't the same be said about MP3 for a lot of music on a lot of systems?   Lossless, though, remains lossless.

[Sonicularity]

4 minutes ago, Derek Hughes said:

I was in the audience and did interrupt and made some negative comments. In my opinion, despite Chris stating that he was going to be impartial, his presentation was anything but. 

 

 

DRM is a real threat, and only because the owners of the format that could stand to make the most from implementing a DRM scheme shout that they won't do it doesn't give consumers much confidence when it has been demonstrated that it is potentially easy to activate.  If MQA becomes more pervasive throughout the industry, the consequence of adding DRM is more likely.  At present, it would be ridiculous to open that can of worms as it would be a disaster for the brand.   The truth, as we understand it today, has been bullied about with PR and marketing techniques.  

 

[Sonicularity]

Chris was undoubtedly not antagonistic toward MQA, but compared to those with microphones in hand in the audience that worked for MQA at the highest levels, did anyone expect their version to be balanced and impartial?  Really?  That was who was in the room complaining and making a big stink about an anonymous person providing accurate and reproducible technical information.   How could anyone possibly expect any resemblance of fairness or objectivity when outnumbered by a team that needs to tear down any controversy to succeed.

 

[Sonicularity]

5 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

As I'm over sixty I fall into that category, But in defence of us oldies I think being an experienced listener (ie trained listener) is more important than whether or not your hearing drops off at the very highest frequencies.

 

I agree the RMAF is probably not the place to fight a 'war', or even why we need to fight a 'war' in the first place. I find a lot of the anti-MQA brigade on this site hysterical and childish in the way the attack respectable journalists and respectable companies. I am personally indifferent to MQA, as I was with SACD, DSD etc, and hope to continue that way.

 

MQA is uniquely different from SACD or DSD in that it could potentially replace all other formats for delivery, including physical media and digital delivery via streaming or online purchase.  Once the pesky competition is washed away, we have only the word of MQA that some form of restrictived DRM will never be implemented with a system that was fully designed to do so.  

 

 

[Sonicularity]

Archimago should have sat next to Chris in a Daft Punk outfit to remain anonymous.

[Sonicularity]

MQA wants to stick to their nonsensical spin that some of us refute or question.   We can read all of their marketing fluff splattered over the internet or repeated mysteriously by several industry insiders.  They never answer the tough questions, and this presentation was no different.

[Sonicularity]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

Ultimately the person responsible for the disrespectful treatment of Chris and the intentional disruption of his presentation is this person:

 

 

 

Marjorie Baumert, show director.

 

Is she interested in a perspective of a allegedly important new digital format like MQA being treated with at least a modicum of investigation it deserves?  OR, is she only interested in an industry first, anti-consumer perspective of too much of this industry?

 

At the very least, she owes Chris an apology for the failure of the show to allow Chris to at least present...

 

 

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

So what was in the emails?  Lee or Chris?

 

Archimago is easily contacted as stated it is a pseudonym, not a hidden identity. 

 

These mysterious, but closely held emails don't sound like transparency.  What suddenly enlightening info do they hold, and why not put it out there?

 

I´d like to know some of the details about the email, but I´m quite certain it is simply a rehash of the Q&A information Bob Stuart has already provided in the past.  I wouldn´t expect a straight answer to explain any of the issues brought about in Chris´s presentation.  It is the same old rambling technical description taken out of context and inappropriately applied as a solution to a fabricated problem.

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

So 24 dB of noise added by MQA

 

Let me guess, "we can't hear it anyway" excuse ?

 

No, this data is useless as presented without a full DNA workup of the original contributor along with a full FBI background investigation.  Archi...what?  Is that even a real person or just an elaborate photoshop bot?  Read Bob Stuart's email responses and just trust all the marketing effort that has been exhaustively put forth from MQA.

 

[Sonicularity]

I'm also interested in the potential consequences of any widespread implementation of MQA.  That is the key issue for most consumers that are engaged in these discussions.  The RMAF presentation was never going to hit the ground running without a viable technical advocate to support Chris.  The MQA fraternity seemed more interested in finding out who to send a legal team to attack.  It seemed like they wanted to find out who Archimago was to see if he had the wherewithal and finances to properly defend against any number of potential legal strategies that a business can employ to shut down detractors.  

 

If MQA gets too big, the danger of a defector revealing the NDA or exposing any long-term plans comes into play; but at that point, it will probably be too late for music customers.

[Sonicularity]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

He isn't even the one they should be going after.

 

They shouldn't be going after anyone, but they do seem desperate.

[Sonicularity]

42 minutes ago, mansr said:

Of course they shouldn't. What I meant was, Archimago was not responsible for uncovering the most damning aspects of what MQA really is.

 

True, but it would be his blog site that provided the most damning aspects that were revealed and probably did the most damage to the brand.  A lot of your excellent engineering work that most people are aware of was presented on his blog.   MQA certainly can't win any legal argument based on the evidence I've seen regarding how the criticism was obtained or presented, but that wouldn't prevent them from possibly being able to create a hassle that effectively cripples the blog site, or at least provides a method to discredit the controversy from a perspective of public opinion.

 

MQA doesn't need to win this battle decisively, they only need to create doubt; after all, they already have the necessary credentials and background to sway gullible executives that make the important decisions.

 

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I wonder where he got the information that early provided samples to reviewers had cross-talk cancellation in them?  That would be a rigged comparison. 

 

MQA ..............the more you know, the less of their claims you can believe.  

 

This was all explained in the sidebar, "Original Flavor MQA Was Arguably Tastier."   While I don't typically put too much faith behind a white paper originating from the audio industry, this particular research supports what has already been presented by others.  

 

[Sonicularity]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I buy.  Streaming services don't really have what I want, and I also do not patronize Rent-to-Buy furniture stores.

 

AFAIK, Streaming is for Millenials.

 

 

I do "stream" in the sense of using YouTube somewhat.

 

I suppose your opinion on the matter all depends on the definition of the use of "patronize." ?

[Sonicularity]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

In reading Bob's "paper", I don't see a peer-reviewed-like description of his test method.  Lots of details are missing.

 

Whereas Bob Stuart's work is detailed in peer-reviewed publications.  Shouldn't Bob Carver be held to the same standard?

 

 

Where is Bob Stuart's peer-reviewed publications based on MQA technology?

[Sonicularity]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

McGill does good work but the problem with DBTs is often you test the audience' critical listening skills more than you do the actual sound difference.  I'm pretty confident in the subjective value of deblurring based on the material differences I heard on Peter's recordings.  The acoustical recordings are often the best way to hear sonic differences.

 

So then those scarce individuals that possess the necessary critical listening skills can purchase MQA products, and the rest of the world can ignore an expensive proprietary format with the full potential locked down.

[Sonicularity]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

One could use the same argument against hirez files as well.  We should strive for the best performing format that works at scale, not settle on an MP3 universe.

 

I don't believe we need HiRes at all, just better-mastered music.