MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

3 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, if we really want to eventually get to the truth about something, which is not always easy, we can guess, make stuff up, speculate and believe all we want.  But, that does not make it so.  Maybe Harley does that, maybe I do that, maybe Sal and you do too.

 

By the way, I am not selling anything.

 

Sure everybody has heard ABOUT it.  But, have you actually heard it?  What do you think about how it sounds?  Sal?  Anybody?

  

It is not about "speculation", "proof", and the like.  "It" is the known DRM that is MQA, the industry decline, the perception of this decline being due to the consumer (piracy, etc.) and the explicit acknowledged motivations and desires of "the industry" for a solution and market circumstances that parallels video.  It is also about MQA's $motivation$ for their end-to-end solution that if it becomes widespread is a takeover and a fundamental change to our digital music ecosystems.  Again, none of this is "speculation" though it is true that every MQA album/source is currently available in PCM (16/44 or higher).

 

The small SQ tweak (far from a "birth of a new world" falsely/fraudulently hyped by the anti-consumer "audiophile press") that MQA appears to be for some people (and just as significantly - more really - not others) might be worth something, but whatever that value is it certainly is not worth the DRM/end-to-end baggage...but you keep selling  

[crenca]

42 minutes ago, andifor said:

 

I think, Apple and others stumbled over DRM and had to release their music as mp3. This as the format for compressed music.

I hope, others will stumble over the same DRM for highres music. I have to admit, I can't remember, why the music industry stumbled over DRM. Was it hardware manufactures? Customers? Music industry to get a bigger share of the money?

 

MQA has to make sure, not to make the same errors and enemies and they might succeed. Not that I wish them good luck...

 

These past stumble are instructive but they do certainly do not define the future.  Indeed, MQA appears to be an honest improvement of the "hard" DRM efforts of the past in that it is clear more consumers are willing to accept this "soft" DRM.  Also, more consumers are "ok" with DRM on a more fundamental level having been conditioned by video.

 

None of this negates the fact that MQA is DRM in its current form...

[crenca]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

Evidence of this support please. 

 

I thought you were talking about files being closer to the real thing, as in the actual music. 

 

I am confused by this question.

 

Are you asking for "evidence" of the open source nature of FLAC and PCM, of there known mathematical definition and limits, and whether MQA is closed source and not transparent (i.e. a "black box")?  Are you saying these things are not so?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I am confused by this question.

 

Are you asking for "evidence" of the open source nature of FLAC and PCM, of there known mathematical definition and limits, and whether MQA is closed source and not transparent (i.e. a "black box")?  Are you saying these things are not so?

 

Oh no. He said I was using CA to support MQA. I asked for evidence of this support. 

 

I certainly report about MQA and instruct people about its use. 

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Oh no. He said I was using CA to support MQA. I asked for evidence of this support. 

 

I certainly report about MQA and instruct people about its use. 

 

 

Oh I see (I was not keeping up).  I don't see CA as "supporting" MQA.  You do not have a problem with the kind of software that MQA is but that is a decision we all make.  Fact is, we all our "ok" with some level of DRM, IP, and such in our software...

[Ralf11]

I just want to know if MQA has destroyed Western Civilization yet?

 

 

and are we ready for Phaze III

[ron spencer]

To be honest, MQA doesn't really mean anything, except to a hugely small () segment of the listening population. Most people today seem quite happy with their crummy bluetooth speakers and horrible phone speakers. Very few people "listen" to music anymore...most just play it, dance around and that is it. So MQA can go for all its worth, just so long as it does not lock down music. I say it again, if new remasters of music are put only into MQA and cannot be "unfolded" back out to be able to be played anywhere/anytime, then you are a fool for supporting it; you will only get burned later (and yes the industry WILL burn you). If it just becomes another method of delivery that does not impede/lock down the flow of music to any and all people, then go ahead. But if it ends up becoming a lock down for "higher end" remasters, then that is an issue. Sure it won't have "destroyed Western Civilization", but it will have destroyed access to music, which nobody should support.

 

A priori one can never know, but since the folks at Meridian won't realease an SDK for people to use to unfold their purchases, I for one don't trust it. Why should I?

[Ralf11]

Let me respond by modifying your post a bit...

 

To be honest, Porsche doesn't really mean anything, except to a hugely small () segment of the population. Most people today seem quite happy with their crummy fat SUVs and horrible self-driving pods. Very few people "drive" cars anymore...most just sit in it, get conveyed around and that is it.

[new_media]

If MQA has an effective automobile analogy, it's Delorean, not Porsche.

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, new_media said:

If MQA has an effective automobile analogy, it's Delorean, not Porsche.

Expecting Bob Stuart to get arrested for drug trafficking?

[daverich4]

My brother came for a visit last weekend. He's made a full time living recording, engineering and mastering albums in the Northeast for more than 30 years. When I asked him what he thought about MQA he had no idea what I was talking about. Never heard of it. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

12 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I don't know if they'll be able to achieve it bro, but to me it's as plain as the nose on your face that's their goal, and that's why I object to it.  SACD may have failed (and good thing too)  in a large part due to its DRM like lockdown of the data, still extremely difficult to rip. 

 

No I haven't heard it, and I've never debated how it may or may not sound except to point out that the changes reported are simply based on "sounds good" subjective reports with zero supportable evidence that it's somehow closer to real.  We could offer up DSP or even a simple parametric modifications that many might report as "sounds good" too when given a subjective listen, you know that.

 

The point is not being debated over SQ, but over it's business model, and the intent both from Meridians pov and the record labels pov. Neither of which are based from a "whats good for the consumer" aspect.

Unlike you, I do not claim to know what MQA's business model is entirely, let alone the details.  But, I must bow in awe to you if indeed you know what those plans are so obviously, if indeed you do know.  Cut the crap, Sal.  You are only pretending you know with certainty what Stuart et al are really attempting to do business-wise with MQA.

 

Also,  can you name one example of a successful company that puts the consumer's best interests over its own?  They only serve the consumer's best interest first if that is in their own best interest. If not, the company asserts its own interest first over the customer's.  It should not take an MBA or a degree in Economics to understand that.

 

You may not like DRM, and neither do I.  But, it is a contorted stretch to say it was DRM that prevented SACD from becoming dominant.  I am sure we could have fun debating the business case study on that one. BTW, I have thousands of unlocked SACD rips on my NAS.

 

Ok, but good to know you have not actually heard MQA yet.  Thanks for your honesty.  You are not alone, especially not among the fiercest, most drop dead critics of the technology.  Few of them have heard it for themselves.  They still may not like what they hear or they may be disappointed by how little additional it offers.  Still, fiercely arguing out of ignorance or irrational fears is not good for one's own sense of intellectual honesty.  

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Oh I see (I was not keeping up).  I don't see CA as "supporting" MQA.  You do not have a problem with the kind of software that MQA is but that is a decision we all make.  Fact is, we all our "ok" with some level of DRM, IP, and such in our software...

 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Oh no. He said I was using CA to support MQA. I asked for evidence of this support. 

 

I certainly report about MQA and instruct people about its use. 

Chris, Last thing I want to do is have this become personal. But you ask for evidence and without drawing this out the evidence is in all posts you have made to debate us making anti-MQA statements.

Do you see the DRM nature of MQA, and the reasoning it is being pushed?

If as crenea said your OK with that, that's your decision. But I would much rather see you and CA taking a more consumer friendly position.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

  

It is not about "speculation", "proof", and the like.  "It" is the known DRM that is MQA, the industry decline, the perception of this decline being due to the consumer (piracy, etc.) and the explicit acknowledged motivations and desires of "the industry" for a solution and market circumstances that parallels video.  It is also about MQA's $motivation$ for their end-to-end solution that if it becomes widespread is a takeover and a fundamental change to our digital music ecosystems.  Again, none of this is "speculation" though it is true that every MQA album/source is currently available in PCM (16/44 or higher).

 

The small SQ tweak (far from a "birth of a new world" falsely/fraudulently hyped by the anti-consumer "audiophile press") that MQA appears to be for some people (and just as significantly - more really - not others) might be worth something, but whatever that value is it certainly is not worth the DRM/end-to-end baggage...but you keep selling  

I think you managed to sidestep my question, whether you intended to or not.  Have you heard it?

 

I aint't selling anything.  I just think people want as much truthful, hopefully verifiable information as they can get so they can form their own conclusions.  But, I can see you are another conspiracy theorist who has it all figured out.

[Sal1950]

26 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 But, I must bow in awe to you if indeed you know what those plans are so obviously, if indeed you do know.  Cut the crap, Sal.  You are only pretending you know with certainty what Stuart et al are really attempting to do business-wise with MQA.

To make money, DUH

 

27 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Also,  can you name one example of a successful company that puts the consumer's best interests over its own?  They only serve the consumer's best interest first if that is in their own best interest

Now your getting it, it has nothing to do with a "good deed"  LOL

 

28 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

But, it is a contorted stretch to say it was DRM that prevented SACD from becoming dominant.

You could very well be right, it was a complicated situation. But I would maintain that to the audiophile consumer who was accustom to easily ripping CD's, it's very successful security really hurt it's acceptance in the market.

[Ralf11]

I think the very best products have been made by people who wanted something to fit their OWN ideal, not to "make money" (which BTW is what the Treasury Dept. does anyway).  Examples:

 

Patagonia (Great Pacific Iron Works)

Porsche

Ferrari

early hewlett-packard (tools for engineers, built by engineers)

Apple

 

[Sal1950]

40 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Ok, but good to know you have not actually heard MQA yet.  Thanks for your honesty.  You are not alone, especially not among the fiercest, most drop dead critics of the technology.

 

12 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I think you managed to sidestep my question, whether you intended to or not.  Have you heard it?

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make some point over if we heard it or what it sounds like. That is irrelevant if like me you oppose MQA on it's politics that we have listed over and over.

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Chris, Last thing I want to do is have this become personal. But you ask for evidence and without drawing this out the evidence is in all posts you have made to debate us making anti-MQA statements.

Do you see the DRM nature of MQA, and the reasoning it is being pushed?

If as crenea said your OK with that, that's your decision. But I would much rather see you and CA taking a more consumer friendly position.

His regurgitating of MQA marketing material also comes off as somewhat biased. That said, I do commend Chris for allowing critical discussion, something certain other sites do not.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

His regurgitating of MQA marketing material also comes off as somewhat biased. That said, I do commend Chris for allowing critical discussion, something certain other sites do not.

 

When explaining to an eager audience, how a proprietary technology works, the only available information comes from the company. Nothing else I can do. 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

When explaining to an eager audience, how a proprietary technology works, the only available information comes from the company. Nothing else I can do. 

You could do nothing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

You could do nothing.

 

Sure. I could fold CA as well. There's a balance to strike. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

When explaining to an eager audience, how a proprietary technology works, the only available information comes from the company. Nothing else I can do. 

Obviously, you are part of the cabal that under Stuart's hypnotic gaze has turned you into another mindless MQA zombie. Eventually, millions like you will be trying to take control, destroying all that is good in audio, sucking the freedom and DRM-hating juices out of heroic audiophiles.  

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Obviously, you are part of the cabal that under Stuart's hypnotic gaze has turned you into another mindless MQA zombie. Eventually, millions like you will be trying to take control, destroying all that is good in audio, sucking the freedom and DRM-hating juices out of heroic audiophiles.  

 

 

Ha! That's too good!

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I think you managed to sidestep my question, whether you intended to or not.  Have you heard it?

 

I aint't selling anything.  I just think people want as much truthful, hopefully verifiable information as they can get so they can form their own conclusions.  But, I can see you are another conspiracy theorist who has it all figured out.

 

But this is the dance we are in - you keep sidestepping the DRM, industry/consumer impact of end-to-end, the reality of everything about MQA (by erroneously calling it "a conspiracy theory") and selling it as an harmless SQ tweak and I...oh wait, I  (and most every other regular here) have already posted our SQ impressions of MQA

[Fitzcaraldo215]

54 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

 

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make some point over if we heard it or what it sounds like. That is irrelevant if like me you oppose MQA on it's politics that we have listed over and over.

The point is not about you and me.  It is about full disclosure for other readers of the forum to take into consideration as they read the opinions over and over about the politics of MQA of which you speak.  Or, in general, about anything else.

 

People have gazillions of opinions about a lot of stuff.  Some are posted in web forums. Some are truthful, some is fake news that distorts reality or polemicizes  a misleading view for a certain agenda.  Foolish idealist though I may be, I believe it is better to have more information and more context in assessing these questions about what individual posters say.

 

The point has already been made in a prior post that we will accept "DRM" or other restrictions, if what we get in return as consumers is worth the sacrifice.  Lord knows, when CD first appeared vs. the LP world in the early 80's, it looked almost exactly like DRM does today.  There was no way of making backup copies of "lossless" quality.  I needed to buy new equipment for CD playback.  That new equipment as well as every CD I purchased contained a price markup to cover royalties paid to Sony/Philips, who owned the rights. Early CDs were very expensive, BTW.  Should I jump on the bandwagon?  I swallowed hard and bit because my sense was after hearing it that the technology had great potential to move things forward in audio quality.  Others, like HP and colleagues at TAS fought CD tooth and nail vs. LP for years, though purely on SQ issues.

 

Ok, that was a long story.  The point is, if you have not heard what a technology can do in SQ yourself, you are not tuned into all the information involved in the tradeoff.  You have blinders on and you are not seeing the whole story.  You are entitled to do that.  But, I just think others should know where you are coming from.