MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Don Blas De Lezo]

1 hour ago, jma2 said:

Hope you got some sleep Chris.

 

After yesterday my "somewhere in the middle" shifted dramatically. Tidal has been replaced by Qobuz and my next DAC will for sure be without MQA support.

 

Kind regards,

Jan

This exactly 100 %  for me  as well.  Although I was more on the highly suspicious side of the middle.  Great effort Chris , you have absolutely nothing to feel bad about and can hold your head up.

[Richard Dale]

45 minutes ago, jparvio said:

The way I see it most of the  people that were participating and arguing (not very crowded based on the video, eh)  had lost their 15kHz and above a decade or two ago .

 

Not sure if RMAF is THE place to fight this War.

 

My oh my, we are in deep ***t.

 

EDIT: Thanks Chris for rocking the Boat. Consumers have the right to know both sides.

 

 

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.

[jparvio]

19 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.

 

I am sorry. By no means did I mean to offend any fellow music lover. Indeed trained ears are valuable asset and mileage brings depth to many a thing. So once more I apologise.

 

My statement was meant to address the fact that there weren´t too many people to start with. Younger generations do not seem to care that much. I, for that matter, just presumed that the place would be flooring with enthusiastic people - nah, how wrong was I. To fly over to RMAF would be too costly a statement, since I live in Finland. So I relied on "other people" to ask the tough questions, ie Chris.

 

Yes some people do take all this MQaing very seriously and personally. My task is the same as Chris´s; we answer to public. As much as I hate the ill turn this MQA debate has taken we still need to make sure all the facts are on the table. What else is worth the fight than the truth?

[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.  

 

 

[Richard Dale]

14 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

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.  

 

 

I have no intention of ever buying any MQA downloads.

 

I don't trust record companies, but they do understand money even if not usually caring about sound quality. If the record companies want to lose a lot of business by restricting choice in download formats, that is their problem. For example, I can't be bothered to pay a huge amount  for a 24/192 download of the recent Dr John boxed set from HDTracks compared with buying a physical box set of CDs for a third the price. Some high res tracks do sound very good, but there is no way that I'm prepared to pay three times as much, and nor would a pay a premium for the MQA format which I personally don't want in the first place.

[Ajax]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

Hi Chris,

 

I think you knew before hand that it was very likely you were in for a hard time.

 

Those that criticised and interrupted you did so for a very good reason - you are exposing them and you WILL cost them money. 

 

I have always been admirer of yours and I am even more so now.

 

Well done ... it takes guts to stand up to bullies. You can hold your head high.

 

 

 

[rn701]

16 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

Here is the link to the video.

 

 

 

"Send lawyers guns and money!"

Dude, hope you had your nomex underwear on.

No way I could have remained that composed.

Those MQA guys were incredibly rude. I would have had security escort them out.

Anyway, this kind of stalking and aggression tells us a lot more about the company than their PR and marketing. 

Good job, CA.

 

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, rn701 said:

Those MQA guys were incredibly rude. I would have had security escort them out.

Yes, that is the best way to deal with hecklers. Refuse to engage with them, no matter how tempting. If necessary, refuse to continue the presentation until they shut up. This will turn the rest of the audience against the heckler. Under no circumstances give them microphones.

[wgscott]

42 minutes ago, rn701 said:

this kind of stalking and aggression

 

There is something about that kind of behavior that seems prevalent in this hobby.  People get as polarized and bent out of shape for this as much as a controversial Supreme Court nomination.

 

The bald Brithole with the complexion of an avid indoorsman who was banging his fist on the desk was indeed a highlight.  I kept waiting for him to escalate to using his shoe.  Who was he?

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, One and a half said:

When a company is bleeding GBP19,438.74 per day, there's going to be anger to those who question and lay down facts. The MQA gang have their interests in their greedy, manipulative ways to make money and will strike out at anything that doesn't suit them.

Well tough luck MQA, lose more pounds per day, FU.

 

@The Computer Audiophile - Presentation well done, you drove a knife into the blubber that is MQA. Good on ya Chris!

 

Absolutely, struck a raw nerve there evidently.

 

The demeanor of MQA's CEO spoke volumes, not the cool, calm, collected, and confident stance that the best leaders exhibit. There was no grace under pressure there. 

 

The most effective and qualified CEOs typically exhibit a mature, rationale and pragmatic approach reflecting their own character, as well as the company's core values.

 

I guess he's long since abandoned any version of steady as she goes when losing £19,438 per day.

 

I wonder how he does in the Boardroom with the Richemont execs when reviewing the MQA quarterly P&L statement, likely not too pretty.

 

[Mercman]

I think Chris did a great job maintaing his cool given the behavior of the Peanut Gallery.

 

He should be commended for his presentation.

[Sonicularity]

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

[austinpop]

6 hours ago, rwdvis said:

The fact that you failed to consider the possibility that manufacturers are more likely hearing from MQA PR/marketing, posing as customers; or that manufacturers are simply lying about “customer demand” in order to take advantage of MQA early adoption discounts, tells me that you’re not sufficiently skeptical to become a respected writer in this industry.

 

If you say so. Maybe I'm just a keg half-full kind of guy!

 

I'm plenty skeptical, but my pitchfork stays in - where do pitchforks live? - my barn, until there's any evidence that MQA is actually going to supplant and suppress all other hi-res formats. Until then, I could care less about MQA.

 

3 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

I don't trust record companies, but they do understand money even if not usually caring about sound quality.

 

Well said.

[beerandmusic]

I think Chris did "ok" for a novice speaker.

 

I believe most seasoned presenters would ask that questions and comments be saved for after the presentation.  The fact that Mics were passed around during the presentation suggests that he was open to an open discussion, so i don't believe those that spoke up should be chastised as rude simply for asking questions during the presentation because Chris "allowed" it.

 

I believe there were valid points from opposiing views...specifically about the "lossless logo".  I do believe Chris should have stated it was an old logo when he first said it was their logo.  In retrospect, it is actually a damning point that they did change the logo, and that it would actually serve more purpose by stating it was an old logo.

 

Personally, i don't know much about MQA, but everything i have read, i don't see any purpose for it's existence in the "true audiophile" world for the simple fact that it is NOT lossless.  It may make sense for bandwidth purposes, and may be better platform for youtube or other streaming services (that don't offer lossless) than what they currently offer....

 

Regardless, i just thought it was ok for a novice speaker.

 

no bias here, one way or the other.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I believe there were valid points from opposiing views...specifically about the logo.  I do believe Chris should have stated it was an old logo when he first said it was their logo.  In retrospect, it is actually a damning point that they did change the logo, and that it would actually serve more purpose by stating it was an old logo.

That's what he did. Or at least was trying to do when the MQA dogs attacked.

[beerandmusic]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's what he did. Or at least was trying to do when the MQA dogs attacked.

In the presentation, He stated "he got the logo straight from MQA"...he didn't state it was old until after they said it was old and hasn't been used since 2016.

 

Again, i don't know if it was oversight or on purpose, but if he did know it was old, he should have stated so, and actually use it in presentation to hammer the point, such as.....

 

e.g. MQA used to advertise it was lossless, and even used this logo back in 2016.  They have subsequently removed the logo as they have admitted defeat in this area, that it is NOT lossless....or similar verbiage.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

In the presentation, He stated "he got the logo straight from MQA"...he didn't state it was old until after they said it was old and hasn't been used since 2016.

 

Again, i don't know if it was oversight or on purpose, but if he did know it was old, he should have stated so, and actually use it in presentation to hammer the point, such as.....

 

e.g. MQA used to advertise it was lossless, and even used this logo back in 2016.  They have subsequently removed the logo as they have admitted defeat in this area, that it is NOT lossless....or similar verbiage.

Look at the slides. It's clear where he was going with it.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Look at the slides. It's clear where he was going with it.

I watched the presentation, and even re-watched it a second time before writing....but will look at slides....do the slides state it was an old logo?

 

it's not a "biggee" to me, but I do think he should have stated it was old at time he said he got it "straight from MQA", especially if he knew they no longer use it....again, i think it would have even more impact that they REMOVED THE LOGO....as that is the main thing against MQA imho....that is MQA actually admitting it is not lossless.....

A good logo would be MQA lossless with a red line through lossless.

[loop7]

Just watched the video of Chris's talk - lots of drama for sure. 

 

The most important slide, in my opinion, is how MQA's success will be determined by titans of streaming/distribution.

[mourip]

13 hours ago, Derek Hughes said:

Brinkman Ship, I’m not a victim. I have no intention on engaging with you and others on MQA or Chris’s presentation. I made my points in the room. 

 

Are you a member of the trade?

 

If so it might be a good idea to identify your relationship.

 

Thanks.

[greyscale]

https://twitteringmachines.com/chris-connaker-of-computer-audiophile-looks-for-mqa-middle-ground-video/

 

Chris, u have a fan.

[Brinkman Ship]

5 hours 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.

Of which "respectable journalists" do you refer? The ones that did no critical reporting on a fraudulent technology and were scooped by folks with more technical acumen?

[Brinkman Ship]

5 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

I have no intention of ever buying any MQA downloads.

 

I don't trust record companies, but they do understand money even if not usually caring about sound quality. If the record companies want to lose a lot of business by restricting choice in download formats, that is their problem. For example, I can't be bothered to pay a huge amount  for a 24/192 download of the recent Dr John boxed set from HDTracks compared with buying a physical box set of CDs for a third the price. Some high res tracks do sound very good, but there is no way that I'm prepared to pay three times as much, and nor would a pay a premium for the MQA format which I personally don't want in the first place.

You seem to not understand the MQA paradigm. There only a handful of MQA "downloads" available.  It is consumable mainly through a Tidal HiFi subscription for $20 a month so.

 

I do agree with you that he price of high resolution downloads are divorced from reality.  They are way out of whack.

[manisandher]

Well done Chris.

 

Mani.

[wdw]

27 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

You seem to not understand the MQA paradigm. There only a handful of MQA "downloads" available.  It is consumable mainly through a Tidal HiFi subscription for $20 a month so.

 

I do agree with you that he price of high resolution downloads are divorced from reality.  They are way out of whack.

 

Wonder if all North American Tidal subscribers should advise them they will be leaving as soon as Quboz  become available and this, in part, due to MQA.