MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Lee Scoggins]

5 hours 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. 

 

This is indeed true.  Admittedly the discussion got a bit contentious during the PPT presentation.  Perhaps some observations on what I saw as a member of the audience would be useful:

 

1. 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.

 

2.  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.

 

3.  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.

 

4.  Mike Jbara is very impressive in person.  He provided very good answers to the business elements and forces at work.  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. From my vantage point, Mike was answering the questions from a business strategy standpoint with some knowledge thrown in from his deep label experience.

 

5. The video completely misses the tone and interaction that the discussion ended on.  Almost all of the discussion was positive except for one strange but nice guy who went off into space talking about the metaphysical aspects of what we hear.  Mike and Ken were patient and actually talked for quite a while to anyone who had questions.  They even spent around 20 minutes talking to attendees for 15-20 minutes after the room has cleared.  Rt66 can attest to this.  

 

6.  I feel bad for Chris because I think his intentions were honorable and I did not enjoy seeing him get upset before he left..  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.  But after the end of the discussion, Chris was clearly flustered as he left the room.  I don't see any evidence that the team from MQA had intended on that happening.  I know Ken definitely did not want that to happen.  Ken was pretty thoughtful in his points and I think they feel they put some time into educating Chris on some points and were clearly frustrated that some of that knowledge was conspicuously excluded from the PPT deck.  I wish Chris had stayed as the discussion was really positive and even-handed after the idiots doing the video stopped.  Chris, I respect what you have done here.  As Chris will tell you, I even tried to help him with the launch of Superphonica.

 

7.  Derek Hughes I had just met at RMAF.  I had seen him drinking with Chris at the bar Pint Brothers the night before but only got to introduce myself.  Since then, we have had some good discussion.  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.  At the end of the day, I think Derek is just a consumer who likes what he has heard with MQA.

 

8.  I'm not sure why Steve Hoffman is against MQA but he is a friend and I will ask.  I have had many mastering engineers tell me they are worried about the impact on their business though.

 

9.  I'm not "protected" at the Steve Hoffman forums.  I've been kicked off a couple of times for having opinions that go against the prevailing wisdom including one time I criticized an SACD series Steve was involved in.  But by and large I find Steve does excellent masterings and I keep buying his work.

 

By way of an update, we are getting close to selecting the final tracks of our recordings which will be sent to the MQA team to encode.  Spencer Chrislu will be doing this.  Then I will get the encoded file back and will be able to A/B them on both my DirectStream DAC and a Mytek Brooklyn+ on loan from Mehow.  I may also be able to secure a dCS product for a comparison.  So I will be in a pretty good position to share some subjective thoughts on my own recordings.  This has taken longer than anticipated because my recording partner had a stroke and has been recovering.  The good news is that he is doing much better.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, tmtomh said:

@The Computer Audiophile, I'm sorry you had to deal with the tag-team bullying of the MQA execs and other industry folks who ganged up on you (I'm not lumping @Derek Hughes in with that group - a person can honestly participate in something like that without meaning to be uncivil, and I take Derek on his word at that).

 

Chris, for what it's worth, anyone in your position would feel badly in the immediate aftermath of that experience. In a normal, proper situation, even vigorous disagreement and high drama during Q&A are based on a foundation of civility and mutual respect - a baseline, implicit agreement among the parties that everyone involved is a legitimate player in the field and has at least some area of experience and authority from which they can speak.

 

Unfortunately in this case, those guys did not afford you that baseline level of civility and respect. They attacked your credibility and your right to even be a presenter, and they acted out this disrespect not only in the content of their attacks, but more fundamentally in the very pattern of their behavior, by interrupting and derailing instead of sitting through the presentation and then going after you. 

 

We're all adults and we can and should take our lumps. And audiophilia is not necessarily known for politeness. But in my view this went beyond that - you were basically abused, and it was a traumatic experience. Very low on the trauma scale in the scheme of things of course - but even being in a totally minor fender-bender with no injuries can still leave one a bit shaken and questioning what they could have done differently even if they were not at fault.

 

So I hope the bad feeling already is starting to pass and that you're feeling more centered again - and I hope you are not being too hard on yourself. You might indeed have room for tweaking or improvement in your presentation or approach, but that is not why they attaked you like they did - nothing in your presentation justified or actually provoked their action. They and they alone are responsible for that.

 

Sorry but that is not a correct characterization of the actual event.  Perhaps we could have had fewer interruptions but the discussion was served well by addressing the points as the slides were presented.  And the MQA guys and Derek and I were generally civil.

 

My biggest empathy for Chris is that I am sad he missed the discussion after he left.  It was full of good information from Mike and Ken.  And best of all, the ending tone was very positive.  

 

So Chris can feel really good about the fact that many in the audience left understanding both sides of the MQA question.  I just wish he had seen it for himself.

 

And Chris, sorry if I did anything that led to you to leave so early.

 

Chris is a good guy.  Mike is a good guy.  Ken is a good guy.  

 

My guess is that most of the more thoughtful members here would have more respect for what Stuart is trying to do if they sat down for a polite discussion with either Ken or Mike.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I don't have the expertise to address your other points, but this one is absolute undiluted load of codswallop.

 

Really?  I have seen this many times in London.  Perhaps I am visiting the wrong bars. 

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Based on the video, it's an absolutely correct characterization of the behavior that resulted in the event - Chris' presentation - summarily ending, and the "good discussion" taking place outside the context of the presentation for which that time slot was scheduled, and for which Chris was the duly selected presenter by the folks at RMAF.

 

The fact that you feel good about the discussion that took place after Chris was bullied out of the room, doesn't have one whit to do with the point I was making about the fundamental level of disrespect and refusal to grant baseline professional status to Chris, which was manifested in the derailing of this presentation. I have been in academia for 25 years: I have seen interjections from the floor; I have seen outrageous and super-polemical things said during Q&A. I am familiar with drama and fighting and all kinds of disagreement, both legitimate and not.  The choice these "good guys" made not to listen to the presentation and go after him then, speaks volumes.

 

@Lee Scoggins, if you were treated the way Chris was at that presentation, there's no way in the world you would have the take on it that you are proposing here.

 

If you had been there and heard the discussion among the audience after Chris left, you would have a different opinion.  As for Chris leaving, that was his abrupt decision.  No one "bullied him out of the room."

[Lee Scoggins]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hello @Lee Scoggins - We obviously see things very different. That’s totally fine with me. 

 

P.S. I noticed on your RMAF badge that you’re based near Atlanta. Given that Ken Forsythe is based in Atlanta, have you two been able to connect to discuss MQA more so or on a different level than most people in the industry? Not insinuating anything, but asking a fair question. 

 

Yes, I have interviewed Ken a couple of times for upcoming articles.  We also share a love of photography and Wilson speakers.  Ken is helping coordinate sending files to get encoded.

 

The audio industry is small.  But that makes it fun as we all know each other for the most part.  Seems like everyone is connected in some form or fashion.  I have also found this to be true with the watch industry.

[Lee Scoggins]

I see Brinkman Ship hasn't changed a bit.  LOL.

[Lee Scoggins]

12 minutes ago, Alan B said:

@Lee Soggins your account of what took place at the seminar is NOT what I witnessed.  I was there, and your "good guys" (Mike & Ken) were anything but polite!  I have attended RMAF for the last 13 years and have been to many (not all) of the seminars and I have never seen such loutish behavior by so called professional executives.  In my professional career as a director of international sales for a high technology company, I frequently traveled to the U.K., and never saw such behavior.  So your laughing off this type of conduct falls on deaf ears.

 

Did you stay and address any concerns to Ken or Mike?  Many others did and it was a polite exchange.  Sure there have been many seminars that are less contentious but keep in mind that MQA is one of the more contentious topics and that Ken and Mike felt that Chris was not including some important material they sent out.  I found Ken and Mike to be fairly civil.  There were several times when Chris asked Ken to hold the thought and continue and Ken did, for instance.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Thought that you might want to hear from a proud member of the "civility police."

 

I feel that an attack on Marjorie Baumert is very much off base. Marjorie is a truly gracious person who continues to run RMAF, in part to honor her late husband, Al Steifel, who founded the Colorado Audio Society many years ago. Her goal has been to maintain the generous spirit of inclusiveness that Al was known for.  Keep in mind that, more than other shows, RMAF isn't an industry event. To be sure, they get professional help to organize and administer the show, and the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers are there to generate business, but ultimately, RMAF is an event for consumers. The guys and gals at the tables when you enter the Marriott, giving you your badges and show guides, are CAS volunteers. The RMAF seminars are generally not ideas of the show's organizers—they are proposed by the presenters. I moderated the first seminar on Sunday morning ("Multichannel Music: Promise and Problems") and I had pitched the idea early in the year to Marjorie and to Ramsay Thurber, who coordinated the sessions for 2018. RMAF gets many more proposals for seminars than there are slots to accommodate them and final decisions aren't made until late summer.

 

RMAF gives no recommendations regarding how a seminar should be run. They assign a time slot and advise that the session will be A/V recorded. I'm an admirer of Chris C and the CA site, but I feel he made a mistake—as someone else in this thread has already suggested—in not laying down ground rules at the outset, that questions and comments should be saved until the end of the presentation. I'm pretty sure that Chris had structured his talk so that there would have been plenty of time for audience participation after he'd finished. This is exactly what I did for the seminar I ran with panelists Kal Rubinson and Brian Moura—and my topic was far less contentious than MQA.

 

Chris instead permitted the microphone to be handed to the MQA representatives seated near the rear of the amphitheater and that's when he got derailed. Chris specifically noted early in this thread, ahead of the event, that "people can chime in if they want."  I would have lost my train of thought and momentum too. Chris inadvertently set the stage for what happened. Those guys came loaded for bear and…well, the rest is history.

 

A question worth asking is why the MQA people felt that they could and should be as aggressive as they were. And here, I feel, is where Chris has to take some responsibility as the person who makes the rules at CA. As you've heard from me before, my perception (and the perception of plenty of others) is that, when it comes to MQA, a small number of posters adopt a provocatively shrill and insulting tone that's out of sync with a hobbyist/enthusiast site: As Chris noted in his talk, "Nobody is saving babies in HiFi / Nobody is killing puppies in HiFi." But you wouldn't think that was the case from some of the comments from a few online participants in CA's various MQA threads over the past two years. Were the MQA people "rude" as they defended their product? Maybe. But perhaps not in the context of what the forum for which Chris is the face of has been issuing. Civility-wise, what goes around, comes around.

 

So, yes, the MQA cadre on Sunday afternoon was inflamed—interrupting-the-speaker, pounding-the-table inflamed—but, certainly, there's been a lot of inflammation on the other side as well. Everyone should take a whole lot of deep breaths.

 

Andrew Quint

The Absolute Sound

 

 

Well said.  I think there was also a mistake on the part of the video team.  They stopped filming while an active discussion was underway and within the event time slot.  The discussion was very civil and contained some good information.  The conversation ended on a good note.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I do a lot of public speaking -  there are ways of dealing with interruptions (though I'm glad RT66indierock didn't bring his blue laser to my own presentation.) With all due respect, Chris appeared to be out of his depth as the presenter of a seminar. He wasn't able to control what was happening and let things get away from him. The fact that he shut it down at 42 minutes into the planned hour was disappointing. That wasn't Marjorie's fault or even the MQA guys' fault. That is down to Chris.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Bingo.

[Lee Scoggins]

Look, at the end of the day, this forum wields little power over MQA.  Their customer is the label, producer, and artist.  Armchair engineers hiding behind a username is not their customer.  If MQA gets established with a major streaming service then there is enough royalty to be very successful financially.

 

One of the many great things about free markets is that anyone can create a new, better codec.  If that person can convince the labels and producers that there is value in the new codec then sign them up to master a back catalog and then offer it on a streaming service then people are going to make money.

 

Sony needs money; I suspect that potential return on investment is more real than some DRM fantasy espoused here.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Have you ever tried to dress a child who doesn’t want clothes put on?

 

Hint: It doesn’t matter what you say, the clothes aren’t going on. 

 

Why bring Brinkman Ship into this Chris?  I've moved on.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, jtwrace said:

I'm quite happy I don't pay your publication anymore.  You should be ashamed of your MQA folks acting like they did, Chris isn't responsible for how the heads at MQA feel or act, they are.  Chris could not have made it more clear to prove him wrong and the bottom line is they can't like many in this hobby and you sir just add to the confusion to your readers.  As someone who posts objective data you should understand more than anyone and yet you seem to want to get into a subjective battle since there is big money at stake.  Pick a side, science or being a master audiophile.  

 

Actually Chris is responsible as he opened the floor up to discussion.  That is when Ken started making some points.  Chris did not have to open the floor to discussion.

[Lee Scoggins]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are the actions of Ken and Mike the actions of people who aren’t worried about what the CA Community has to say?

 

 

 

Yes.  I think Mike and Ken have realized that this community here never will give credit to MQA for anything, no matter what they achieve.  The view here is that MQA is evil.  So at that point, it becomes pointless to have a discussion.  It has become a waste of bandwidth.

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The more I think about this the more I believe the biggest thing MQA is afraid of is the general public learning about the DRM aspects of MQA. If the general public hear’s DRM again wrt audio they will revolt and give the labels a flashback to the Napster days. When the mainstream press writes about DRM getting back into audio, I’m willing to bet the labels will flinch. 

 

In addition, which streaming service wants to be associated with DRM? 

 

Perhaps it’s time to take the gloves off, get real and write some brutally honest articles and contact my friends at the NY Times (who’ve interviewed me in the past). People are always looking for a good story. 

 

Anyone else interested in getting the word out?

 

 

 

Why would the MQA team be worried about DRM?  All they have to do is show that no DRM has ever been used in over four years since launch.  I don't think it's a big issue for the labels.  The labels are not that smart but they have learned from past mistakes.

[Lee Scoggins]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

You've succeeded in uniting a bunch of people here against you, who are typically arguing endlessly amongst themselves about USB cables and stuff like that. Congratulations.

 

The monolithic thinking here about MQA being evil has united this place against anyone pointing out the positive aspects of MQA.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, jtwrace said:

They can't show anything other than financials that are very poor.  Oh, and disgusting etiquette in meetings.  

 

It's a startup.  At this stage it's all about cash position and they are fine.

[Lee Scoggins]

13 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

You fail to realize that we (the consumer) is the customer.  While the big labels are great, if we don't buy the material, it makes no difference.  There has to be something in it for them.  Also, if this forum didn't yield anything, I'm pretty sure 5 top level execs from MQA wouldn't have attended Chris' seminar.  Which makes me ask you, why are you even here if CA doesn't yield anything?  Clearly you think it does have merit otherwise you would find something better to do with your time while hiding behind your computer.  Good to know that you represent Part Time Audiophile too so I can cross them off the useful list.  It''s quite pathetic.  

 

What the customer buys also depends on access.  If MQA is embedded in a streaming service, then the customer may buy for the improved sound quality but many other factors like price, depth of albums, branding, etc. will determine value for the customer.

 

There were only 2 MQA execs in attendance, Ken and Mike, and a PR rep who handles several companies, of which MQA is a customer.  Mike and Ken were civil.

 

Derek is a customer who likes MQA and got pretty animated but he's not associated with the company.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, hineni said:

 

No, you have to explain why they spent the time and money to build DRM into MQA when there was no intention to ever use it. Once you claimed MQA was lossless, now you admit it never was. Why would we believe a word you say now, especially on such an important issue?

 

The DRM code is not for DRM, it's for authentication so they can control the quality of the end product.  It certifies that the resulting file has had the correct MQA filters applied and has been approved by the label/producer/artist or some subset thereof.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

 

Are you compensated by the company, either financially or in other ways?

 

No, I have not received any compensation.  I am writing articles on the technology because I think it has merit in terms of getting more hirez out as my first article showed.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, jtwrace said:

Well, I"m using Qobuz right now and can't wait to drop Tidal like a hot potato for more than MQA alone.  If any streaming service forces me to use MQA (which I dislike sonically) I won't use them, it's that simple. 

 

I have a Qobuz subscription and I like it a lot.  But Tidal Masters still sound a bit better on Roon.  Soon I suspect it will get integrated into Roon and we can do an apples to apples comparison.

[Lee Scoggins]

6 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Finally, your last comment about money (ROI) versus "DRM fantasy" is either a statement made in extraordinarily bad faith, or a statement that illustrates your inability to grasp the basic logic of what MQA is and seeks to accomplish. MQA's purported role in making the labels money is inseparable from MQA's built-in DRM. As MQA reps themselves have stated, the value proposition for the labels is being able to hold on to "the crown jewels" - the original high-res PCM files - because MQA is not the same as the "crown jewels" and it restricts consumers' access to "the crown jewels." As I stated above, this "crown jewels" value/RIO argument in favor of MQA literally makes no logical sense unless MQA is DRM, which is exactly what it is.

 

The reason this all matters is that, despite what you claim, the labels need equipment makers and consumers to accept MQA in the marketplace - the labels can exert a significant degree of coercion, but they don't yet have the power to force PCM-based digital files out of the market, and they don't have the power to insert all their licensing fees into the chain without it showing up in the form of higher retail prices for streaming and such. And so what audiophile and enthusiast consumers think of MQA - whether or not they think it offers "master tape" sound, whether or not they think it's DRM, whether they think it's lossless or lossy, whether or not they think it's 24-bit or 13-17 bit - all makes a great deal of difference indeed. That's what this is all about. And you know that, too.

 

If the DRM aspects were important, why would they not be embedding DRM into the files already?

 

If the labels were worried about theft of masters, why would they license content to Qobuz in hirez?

 

If the labels were worried about theft of masters, why would they allow downloads by HDTracks and others?

[Lee Scoggins]

I've been talking to people in the audio business the past few weeks.  I think that some execs believe that authentication is important.  But not really for copyright and DRM reasons.  I think they want to have revenue from a premium product.  The "green light" authentication creates a visual way to confirm good sound and they are probably betting the customer will pay extra for that...or at least some customers.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Premium?  You can get it in that cheap-ass Meridian Explorer 2 for $200.  ?

 

Was referencing streaming where ideally they monthly charge is higher for better sound quality.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

 

To your first question: MQA is embedding DRM into the files already. An unfolded and/or rendered MQA file - that is, the full quality and full resolution - can only be played/streamed in real time, on proprietary, licensed software and hardware. It cannot be copied, manipulated by the end user for personal use, or played back at full/original resolution on non-proprietary software or hardware.

 

To your second question: This is why MQA makes the "crown jewels" argument. The idea is that the labels have dipped a toe in the high-res waters but it remains a niche market because they are hesitant about making high-res PCM a truly widespread, mainstream market for fear of totally losing control of their masters. To learn more about this, you should really ask this guy @Lee Scoggins about that. I don't know if you've met him, but he's on record here, and I believe at the Hoffman forums, repeatedly saying that MQA will make the labels feel more comfortable releasing high-res music more broadly, resulting in a quantum leap in the amount of high-res music available to consumers. He's said millions of MQA songs are in the pipline, and he's said about 30,000 MQA albums are in the pipeline. You really should check out his posts. 

 

To your third question: See my reply to the second question, as it's the same question.

 

I don't believe this definition of DRM is fair to MQA's unfolding technology.  The unfolding is the clever aspect of Stuart's approach which enables the smaller file sizes.  You are essentially saying that any folding is DRM but the classic definition is that DRM controls user rights.  The MQA file can be copied and played on any MQA-compatible device.  It's apples and oranges.

 

On the second paragraph, a couple of thoughts:

1.  The need for smaller files is real as bandwidth considerations at scale are real.

2.  All the major labels and Merlin have committed to applying MQA to their entire back catalog.  I know from people working in the industry, that the MQA masterings are being done in volume.  There is so much activity that MQA now has a cloud-based service where engineers are uploading files that get encoded in the cloud.

[Lee Scoggins]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Come on Lee. A dynamically compressed track with all the DR removed will still illuminate the MQA light. The light is no guarantee of good sound and you know this. 

 

Sorry Chris, misread the comment.