MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

MQA revenue won't be $48 million of course, they get a percentage of that.  The key for MQA is to get a revenue stream from most of the participants in the ecosystem.

 

How do you know? I think it will be Way less as MQA is dead on arrival. Why don't you shill nonsense elsewhere.

[botrytis]

MQA is dead, face it Lee. The people who know the most about what it is, are not the ones pushing this nonsense. It is the pushers that know nothing.

[Don Hills]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I notice that you keep making snide remarks but you don't actually present any arguments to my quotes.

 

They've already been comprehensively debunked. No need to clutter the thread until you come up with something new to rebut.

[mansr]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You sure it’s still about to launch?

It's still out to lunch.

[Lee Scoggins]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You sure it’s still about to launch?

 

That's what the owner tells me.

[MikeyFresh]

43 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's what the owner tells me.

 

Too little too late from the quite delayed Chesky streaming service. Is Norman really a better visionary than Jay-Z's team?

 

Are their pockets deep enough to burn through £15,000 per day or similar? Or is 7Digital footing that bill?

 

I'll be sure not to buy anymore downloads from them should this actually come to fruition, nor subscribe to this streaming service, and I encourage others to follow suit.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's what the owner tells me.

 

He obviously knows how gullible you are.

[rickca]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

That's what the owner tells me.

Good.  If the primary focus of the service is streaming/downloads of MQA material, we might get some indication of the strength of end user demand for MQA.  I'm sure the usual suspects will rave about it to generate buzz.  

[Old Tech]

15 hours ago, TeflonScoundrel said:

I've been following this thread for a while and decided to post my thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

 

I then played the files for my audiophile brother without him knowing which song was which format and his results matched mine.  Based on that, all this talk of correcting issues with the original files, don't make any sense to me.  I don't think there are any problems to "correct" in normal CD quality or better files.

 

 

I've never been able to work that one out either.  If there are issues with ADCs that 'need to be corrected' for superior playback sound, then isn't there a far bigger issue if the recording was originally analog?  What is the point in correcting a likely inaudible issue with say an early ADC when even modern tape recorders (let alone vintage machines which recorded much older stuff) have wow/flutter, azimuth alignment imperfections and so on which are by order of magnitude far more significant (though still probably inaudible)? There are even some masters that were recorded from archived vinyl...

[Kyhl]

On 10/20/2018 at 6:48 AM, John_Atkinson said:

 

Sorry, but no. The MQA versions were provided under the condition that I would not share them without permission. The originals you can purchase, of course. But as Chris Connaker appears to have the same files, perhaps he would be amenable to your request.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Who is the rights holder limiting the sharing of the files?  Have you asked for permission to share the files?

[Kyhl]

20 hours ago, TeflonScoundrel said:

I've been following this thread for a while and decided to post my thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

 

I was initially excited about MQA when I first read about it.  Once Roon began supporting MQA I used Tidal to create a playlist of about 10 MQA songs & the matching 16/44.1 songs and a few weeks later compared them via my PS Audio DSJ using Wilson Sabrina speakers without knowing which file was which.  About half the time I couldn't hear a difference and had no preference.  With the exception of one track the rest of the time I preferred the 16.44.1 files.  The MQA files where I could hear a difference had rounded off or smoothed transients and a diffuse sound field.  

 

I then played the files for my audiophile brother without him knowing which song was which format and his results matched mine.  Based on that, all this talk of correcting issues with the original files, don't make any sense to me.  I don't think there are any problems to "correct" in normal CD quality or better files.

 

Based on my comparisons, I do think MQA is designed as a profit stream for MQA and the labels and doesn't benefit the consumer in any way.  After watching the behavior of the MQA team during the RMAF presentation, I cancelled my Tidal membership because I couldn't bring myself to support them as long as they support MQA.  I'm really looking forward to Qobuz becoming available in the United States.

Welcome. New here too.

Throw Stereophile in there as well.  I gave up my 15+ year long stereophile subscription a year ago because of their support of this bogus medium.  I suggest others do as well.

 

I won't touch Tidal.  Wouldn't it be funny if Qobuz matches or surpasses Tidals HiRes subscriber base within the first quarter of US operation.   I'm looking forward to see how that turns out.

[h.rav]

@Lee Scoggins Is MQA Ltd. one of Accenture's customers? Are you consulting for them?
Your posts are mostly related to MQA. 

On a personal note, clearly, MQA is all about DRM. There is nothing more to argue about this.

[Indydan]

5 hours ago, h.rav said:

@Lee Scoggins Is MQA Ltd. one of Accenture's customers? Are you consulting for them?
Your posts are mostly related to MQA. 

On a personal note, clearly, MQA is all about DRM. There is nothing more to argue about this.

 

Maybe Lee met Jbara at Accenture? 

 

 

Mike Jbara joined MQA from Warner Music Group where he held roles as head of studios, President of ADA Worldwide, President of WEA Corp., and most recently Corp EVP, Technology. Before joining Warner, Mike was part of the New York-based Media and Entertainment Practice at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture).

 

http://www.mqa.co.uk/professional/meet-the-team

 

 

[Anodyne Jones]

On 10/20/2018 at 11:26 AM, TeflonScoundrel said:

I've been following this thread for a while and decided to post my thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

 

I was initially excited about MQA when I first read about it.  Once Roon began supporting MQA I used Tidal to create a playlist of about 10 MQA songs & the matching 16/44.1 songs and a few weeks later compared them via my PS Audio DSJ using Wilson Sabrina speakers without knowing which file was which.  About half the time I couldn't hear a difference and had no preference.  With the exception of one track the rest of the time I preferred the 16.44.1 files.  The MQA files where I could hear a difference had rounded off or smoothed transients and a diffuse sound field.  

 

I then played the files for my audiophile brother without him knowing which song was which format and his results matched mine.  Based on that, all this talk of correcting issues with the original files, don't make any sense to me.  I don't think there are any problems to "correct" in normal CD quality or better files.

 

Based on my comparisons, I do think MQA is designed as a profit stream for MQA and the labels and doesn't benefit the consumer in any way.  After watching the behavior of the MQA team during the RMAF presentation, I cancelled my Tidal membership because I couldn't bring myself to support them as long as they support MQA.  I'm really looking forward to Qobuz becoming available in the United States.

Hi Teflon:

 

Almost the identical experience and situation here! Been lurking, and following various threads on MQA. The RMAF video was the final straw for me. I too await Qobuz in the USA. I have been a download customer for a number of years.

 

Cheers.

 

AJ

[Lee Scoggins]

4 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

Maybe Lee met Jbara at Accenture? 

 

 

Mike Jbara joined MQA from Warner Music Group where he held roles as head of studios, President of ADA Worldwide, President of WEA Corp., and most recently Corp EVP, Technology. Before joining Warner, Mike was part of the New York-based Media and Entertainment Practice at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture).

 

http://www.mqa.co.uk/professional/meet-the-team

 

 

 

Just Met Mike for the first time at RMAF.  Anderson Consulting went away many years ago.

[the_bat]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Just Met Mike for the first time at RMAF.  Anderson Consulting went away many years ago.

Perhaps that's why it says "Andersen Consulting (now Accenture)"

 

Really Lee, even by your standards that's a bit weak.

 

Although, given the reasons Andersen Consulting "went away"........

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, the_bat said:

Perhaps that's why it says "Andersen Consulting (now Accenture)"

 

Really Lee, even by your standards that's a bit weak.

 

Although, given the reasons Andersen Consulting "went away"........

 

You miss my point.  Andersen Consulting was a very different firm 20+ years ago when the parent was an accounting firm.  Consulting did a lot of "strat services" back then.  Now we are making most of our revenue in digital and analytics and the firm was spun off when Andersen died from Enron.  Mike has mostly been working in the music business most of the time since.  I met Mike for the first time at RMAF and it was then that he mentioned he was part of the "old Andersen."  

[semente]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

You miss my point.  Andersen Consulting was a very different firm 20+ years ago when the parent was an accounting firm.  Consulting did a lot of "strat services" back then.  Now we are making most of our revenue in digital and analytics and the firm was spun off when Andersen died from Enron.  Mike has mostly been working in the music business most of the time since.  I met Mike for the first time at RMAF and it was then that he mentioned he was part of the "old Andersen."  

 

And why have you been "defending" MQA so vehemently?

And I do actually mean "defend" not "enlighten" because obviously you are, I'm sorry to say, not qualified / knowledgeable enough to do so.

What's in it for you?

Have you "defendeded" any audio equipment, manufacturer or technology before? Why?

[Lee Scoggins]

40 minutes ago, semente said:

 

And why have you been "defending" MQA so vehemently?

And I do actually mean "defend" not "enlighten" because obviously you are, I'm sorry to say, not qualified / knowledgeable enough to do so.

What's in it for you?

Have you "defendeded" any audio equipment, manufacturer or technology before? Why?

 

There is nothing in it for me except for some articles to write on the subject.

 

I've been pro-MQA simply based on what I am hearing in demos.  I believe most here are not giving MQA a fair chance in terms of what it is capable of in the areas of sound improvement, offering more hirez access, and potentially providing a way to give artists more money from streaming their content.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There is nothing in it for me except for some articles to write on the subject.

 

I've been pro-MQA simply based on what I am hearing in demos.  I believe most here are not giving MQA a fair chance in terms of what it is capable of in the areas of offering more hirez access and potentially providing a way to give artists more money from streaming their content.

Can you point to one fact thst shows we have more high resolution access because of MQA?

 

Can you point to facts that artist will make more money?

 

Why is it the consumers’ responsibility to pay more for a broken business model? Artist sign contracts that give away almost everything. You want to help them earn more money, educate them rather than fleece all consumers and line the pockets of everyone except the artist. 

[Shadders]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There is nothing in it for me except for some articles to write on the subject.

 

I've been pro-MQA simply based on what I am hearing in demos.  I believe most here are not giving MQA a fair chance in terms of what it is capable of in the areas of sound improvement, offering more hirez access, and potentially providing a way to give artists more money from streaming their content.

Hi,

I do not understand this.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong, but do artists make any significant money from streaming ? if they don't from normal streaming such as MP3, or other, then how is high resolution going to help them ?

 

From comments i have seen, streaming business is of little benefit to many artists.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[John_Atkinson]

On 10/21/2018 at 10:19 AM, Kyhl said:

Have you asked for permission to share the files?

 

Why would I do that for anonymous posters on an Internet Forum?

 

As I said, I understand Chris Connaker has the MQA files that Bob Carver was writing about and the original PCM versions. He might be more amenable to sharing them with you.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There is nothing in it for me except for some articles to write on the subject.

 

I've been pro-MQA simply based on what I am hearing in demos.  I believe most here are not giving MQA a fair chance in terms of what it is capable of in the areas of sound improvement, offering more hirez access, and potentially providing a way to give artists more money from streaming their content.

But apparently you are pro MQA based on what you hear in improperly done demos designed to work on your expectation bias. 

 

There is nothing preventing the record labels from releasing more hi-res, MQA or not. They want MQA not to give us more hi-res, but to give us adulterated hi-res and keep the "crown jewels" safe in their vaults. 

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Why would I do that for anonymous posters on an Internet Forum?

 

As I said, I understand Chris Connaker has the MQA files that Bob Carver was writing about and the original PCM versions. He might be more amenable to sharing them with you.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

You hear that boys and girls, your merely the unwashed "anonymous" masses...why would you think you are worthy!  Best just listen to your betters like John Atkinson and the rest of the "Old Guard" who are telling you that MQA is really good for you and everyone else... ?

[Anodyne Jones]

I found this posted on another forum. Quite interesting-

 

Digital Done Wrong

 

Installment 1: Introductory Overview

 

Playback Reconstruction Accuracy

by Digital Claiming Superior Time Domain Response

(including MQA)

 

http://www.iar-80.com/page170.html

 

 "...there was clearly something wrong with MQA's enhanced spatial imaging. This inferentially scientifically suggests that MQA's whole enhanced imaging phenomenon might well be due to an inaccurate mistake MQA was making, which is the complete opposite of MQA's own claim that MQA does something better than competing digital systems, hence provides superior and more accurate spatial imaging.

 

Many naïve listeners have joined MQA's own implied claim that bigger, more bloated spatial imaging is always better...."