MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 9/18/2018 at 8:50 PM, Sonicularity said:

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.

There is a middle ground in everything where there are two sides. Extremists on the ends and somewhere between them is the middle ground. Middle ground shouldn't be confused with the dead center or as our President has said, "I'm sure there are good people on both sides."

 

The truth is not 100% of what has been said By MQA Ltd and the truth is not 100% of what has been said by those who hate MQA.  

 

Please don't think this title means I will try to persuade haters to like MQA and MQA to like the haters and have a big happy hug in the middle where we all decide MQA is benign and consumers can buy it if they wish. That's not my intention.

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 9/19/2018 at 10:27 AM, mansr said:

More importantly, MQA does not save any bandwidth. That claim is a complete fabrication.

This is a topic I will address in the seminar. 

 

Compared to Redbook MQA uses equal or more bandwidth. However, with higher resolutions MQA, just like MP3, can save bandwidth by throwing out data. Whether one accepts that as a tradeoff is a different issue, but it's a fact that MQA can save bandwidth. So can MP3. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

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

Authenticated as well ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

My goal is to stay out of the deeply technical weeds. I will touch on some of the stuff such as 18 bits, file sizes, etc... but will mostly look at this from a consumer perspective. Consumers are the audience at the show and the reason for the industry. I will talk to them and provide information they can use. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'm putting everything together today and tomorrow (possibly Fri. & Sat. after the show as well). 

 

Without opening a huge can of worms, I'll ask the question - What do you think consumers should know?

 

Based on previous seminars I've given, there will be a few people who already know this stuff, but most will have only read bits and pieces of what the old guard has told them.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

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!

One of the first things I did after conceiving the idea for this seminar was to invite Ken Forsythe from MQA to attend.   I have nothing to hide and am not out to take down MQA. I’m out to provide information. However painful that may be to some on all sides.

 

After all, if you have cancer you want the doc to tell you the truth so you can make an informed decision on whether or not you want to live with it or fight it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Yes. One is my goal and the other is an outcome. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

33 minutes ago, rickca said:

What's the format of your session?  Is it a presentation followed by Q&A, or a panel discussion or what?

Just me and a microphone and a slide show. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

People can chime in if they want. I just wanted to make sure this is seen for whst it is and if there’s something Ken can clear up that would be excellent. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’m about to start the MQA seninar. Apparently the RMAF YouTube channel will live stream it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I can’t thank you enough for the support. I’m back at my hotel room licking my wounds. It didn’t feel good to be up there and I honestly don’t feel good right now. I need to take some time. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here is a copy of my slides as a PDF if anyone is interested.

 

Thanks again for the support. I'm going to bed. Got a very early flight in the morning. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

Not that it matters but I just noticed that Enjoythemusic.com says they sponsored the seminar that Chris put on? I was under the impression that he set it up. 

That site sponsored a ton of stuff at the show. Heck, the elevators were sponsored by someone. Doesn't mean they had anything to do with elevating or lower people :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK, going to clean up this thread and move the MQA stuff over to the thread started for that topic. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Edwin’s blindness is a nonissue. Nobody in his right mind makes fun of a blind person because he is blind. 

 

Let’s move on from Edwin. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

33 minutes ago, look&listen said:

Remove weasel words & accurate look at root problem with presentation.

You have always been a critic of mine but I respect you for speaking your mind. No worries. 

 

Please know that I was unable to deliver my presentation in a normal fashion due to the behavior of Ken Forsythe and Mike Jbara. Each talking point on my slides deserved additional sentences I had in mind, but I just couldn’t stay on topic or keep my mind on the specific issue at hand. The interruptions made it very hard to focus. 

 

In addition, I did a lot of research for this presentation. Nothing in it is false as far as I know. During my research I did my best to find ways to put MQA in a positive light. I couldn’t find many that didn’t also put the consumer in the opposite light. 

 

I’m OK if you think my presentation was anti-MQA. I only ask that you please conduct some research to find the positive aspects of the technology and the company. It isn’t as easy as one might think. I included some in the presentation such as the fingerprinting and monetary benefit for hardware manufacturers and record labels. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, look&listen said:

Easy to put blame on others.

Hard to look inside for maybe painful truths.

I’d be grateful if you’d address the content of my posts rather than me personally. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours 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?

 

36 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

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.

 

Exactly. 

 

The content of the emails has been presented on CA and not a single expert in audio agrees with MQA. I have countless emails from experts who say the answers are more of the same nonsense. 

 

I’m not hiding anything. I just don’t think putting Bob’s email content on a slide, followed by a dozen highly respected engineers’ debunking of said email, was what my presentation was all about. 

 

MQA is a smart company. In order to talk to them seriously you have to sign an NDA. Thus, when they say “ask company XYZ” if MQA is the real deal or why company ABC likes MQA so much, they know the public answer to that question will be good. 

 

However, given my position I’m fortunate enough to talk to almost any engineer in the world about this stuff. I really wish I could list all the companies and engineers who have told me what they really think. 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. 

 

I will not jeopardize their employment for any reasons. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 hours 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 an 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...

I wouldn’t put any blame on Marjorie. She relies on adults to behave like adults and we (those of us presenting) understand that she isn’t involved with this aspect of the show. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, BigAlMc said:

 

@The Computer Audiophile - you gonna stand for being called that!

 

Oh, wait, I see.....

 

?

Too good!

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

But it's Chris' session, only he can then decide whether this supposedly "important information" was actually such, or lacked detail and merit such that it didn't pass muster for inclusion in the presentation.

 

That's where the oft repeated question of why didn't MQA book their own session at RMAF if  they have important details or clarification/rebuttals to share? Why was last year's session abruptly canceled?

 

Since that question has never been adequately addressed, it isn't valid for you to point at these "important" communications from Jbara and Forsythe as having been unfairly omitted.

 

If you have inside knowledge as to this so-called "important" omitted content somehow being relevant/elucidating, etc... why not detail it for us right here then?

There was never "important information" sent to me. I was all debunked. If I had included this "important information" it would have looked like I was attacking MQA and trying to take them down. Honestly, I would have had to include both sides of that story. Bob's claims and the rest of the world's engineers debunking it. Imagine how biased they would have thought the presentation was after that. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Bingo.

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

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.

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

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

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.

Please let me know where in the video I opened it up for discussion. Also, please note the times I asked for questions at the end and tried to continue my presentation.