MQA fracas at RMAF 2018

[Emlin]

Because I regard it as a waste of time. I've watched others use the ASA route in the past and get nowhere.

Take the example you give. MQA might claim that the aliased folding and folding *does* recover every detail. Note that didn't say that it also added aliases that weren't in the source, only that it recovered details. An IT engineer knowledgable about audio might see the snag, but then the suits who *work in the ad biz* make the decisions being clueless about the engineering or theory.

Add in the "all". I can't check that because they won't give us the source material to check.

Slide sideways and the claim may be said to mean "all that is audible" which then leads to arguments about what one person may hear when someone else doesn't, etc.

Suits can run rings round the ASA, particularly if they can find an 'expert' to write some impressive 'reports' for them.

I've seen this all done in the past in one form or another in one case or another about other claims.

And *I've not seen the MQA ads*. If you have, you can complain and see how you get on. By all means reference this thread and pages I've written, etc.

However I suggest you look first into earlier examples. e.g. when Uncle Russ was taken to the ASA over claims about his mains cables. That is a textbook example of the problem with the ASA. Looking into these would probably save you time and stress.

I'm quite happy to discuss the technical side and let people make their *own* decisions on this. And as I've said before, I don't mind of some people 'prefer' MQA and get it. My central concern there is to avoid us reaching an 'MQA or nothing' situation.

And if people want the audio mags to speak out, write to them. That's probably a much better way forwards than the ASA.

It might be a waste of time, but that time is a few moments. You waste that many times a day anyway. So waste those moments on something important. And stop being a f*cking defeatist! I thought you had more in you.

 

[Shadders]

I thought you had more in you.

It is mostly wind and undigested porridge.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

It is mostly wind and undigested porridge.

4 berry moosli, actually.

But then I am an old fart...

 

[sunbeamgls]

I have also found in my listening tests, that MQA absolutely requires full decode for good performance. Today this means buting a new DAC. However, many audiophiles dont mind.

As one of many audiophiles, please don't presume to speak for me. I would very much mind being told which DAC I have to buy or not buy because of a pointless lossy compression product that has no place in today's high bandwidth high quality World. I'm not the slightest bit interested in buying a new DAC (actually, in my system, 6 channels of DACs) to get something that is worse than I have now.

 

[Emlin]

To win an argument that MQA doesn’t reveal every detail of the original recording you would need to produce an original recording and its MQA derivative and point to some detail that was audible in the original recording, but not in the MQA version.

Anyone care to do that?

MQA have been forced to admit that their format is lossy, ergo it cannot reveal every detail of the original recording, and they are liars for claiming that it can on the home page of their website. Easy to find, because they are paying a lot to get it at the top of the lists. Get over it, MQA is lossy and therefore their claims are cack.

 

[sunbeamgls]

To summarise the thread:

Many people are saying why its a really bad idea that's full of holes, proposed by people who have had to change their tune when their claims have been exposed.

A tiny number of people have some very flimsy arguments for its existence.

Seems like the pendulum is very heavily towards against, with some sound arguments for that position.

 

[DimitryZ]

Because I regard it as a waste of time. I've watched others use the ASA route in the past and get nowhere.

Take the example you give. MQA might claim that the aliased folding and folding *does* recover every detail. Note that didn't say that it also added aliases that weren't in the source, only that it recovered details. An IT engineer knowledgable about audio might see the snag, but then the suits who *work in the ad biz* make the decisions being clueless about the engineering or theory.

Now emphasise the "every". I can't check that because they won't give us the source material to check. How do you show they were wrong without the source material. (Which MQA could claim they don't have to show anyway, because it belongs to the media company.)

Slide sideways and the claim may be said to mean "all that is audible" which then leads to arguments about what one person may hear when someone else doesn't, etc.

etc, etc...

Suits can run rings round the ASA, particularly if they can find an 'expert' to write some impressive 'reports' for them.

I've seen this all done in the past in one form or another in one case or another about other claims.

And *I've not seen the MQA ads*. If you have, you can complain and see how you get on. By all means reference this thread and pages I've written, etc.

However I suggest you look first into earlier examples. e.g. when Uncle Russ was taken to the ASA over claims about his mains cables. That is a textbook example of the problem with the ASA. Looking into these would probably save you time and stress.

I'm quite happy to discuss the technical side and let people make their *own* decisions on this. And as I've said before, I don't mind of some people 'prefer' MQA and get it. My central concern there is to avoid us reaching an 'MQA or nothing' situation.

And if people want the audio mags to speak out, write to them. That's probably a much better way forwards than the ASA.

===MQA might claim that the aliased folding and folding *does* recover every detail.===

They most certainly don't *claim that*, you do with addition of "aliased" into the sentence. Again, conjecture and dirty pool. Concentrate criticism on what you know, not what your think you know.

 

[AndyU]

MQA have been forced to admit that their format is lossy, ergo it cannot reveal every detail of the original recording, and they are liars for claiming that it can on the home page of their website. Easy to find, because they are paying a lot to get it at the top of the lists. Get over it, MQA is lossy and therefore their claims are cack.

I have no doubt that MQA is lossy and some of the claims made for it are wrong or overstated. But please, point me out a detail that is audible on an original recording and inaudible on an MQA derivative.

 

[DimitryZ]

I looked at the MQA site, looked at the press releases and saw the most recent from Pioneer. I then emailed Pioneer asking them how they can say such things. I've asked them before on something and they replied quickly. Let's see.

It is curious that Pioneer are upgrading their most popular streamers, the N70 and N50, for MQA for free as a software update. It seems MQA are giving away decoding to get traction. The N70 is also a very good device. More MQA desperation?

Or maybe smart business strategy? What will the anti-MQA crowd say if it is a software decode only, able to output to any DAC? And free to the end user...

 

[DimitryZ]

As one of many audiophiles, please don't presume to speak for me. I would very much mind being told which DAC I have to buy or not buy because of a pointless lossy compression product that has no place in today's high bandwidth high quality World. I'm not the slightest bit interested in buying a new DAC (actually, in my system, 6 channels of DACs) to get something that is worse than I have now.

Where did you see in my position that YOU have to buy a new DAC? However, sales of Mytek Brooklyn point to an obvious truth of my statement - that many audiophiles don't mind buying a new DAC in order to get MQA.

 

[AndyU]

Hi,
MQA would have to agree to a null test between the master and their MQA file. They will not even agree to providing test tones MQA encoded files - so they will not allow a null test.

Regards,
Shadders.

No they wouldn’t. They would just ask you what it is you cant hear on an MQA recording that you can in the original, and they’d ask you to do that under blind conditions for your refutation of their claim to be acceptable. You’d lose I suspect.

 

[DimitryZ]

I have no doubt that MQA is lossy and some of the claims made for it are wrong or overstated. But please, point me out a detail that is audible on an original recording and inaudible on an MQA derivative.

An excellent point. I have done extensive comparison between Qobuz/LPCM and Tidal/MQA and reported the audible differences to be within a margin of preference. That is, some audiophiles with certain systems may prefer one and others will favor another. They compete on equal footing, which is excellent empirical evidence that MQA has, at least, a right to try to compete in the marketplace.

The problem is, anti-MQA crowds isn't satisfied with allowing a market solution to emerge. They want to kill MQA be extra-market means (note the new appeals to complain to "authorities"), in order to defend the legacy technology.

 

[DimitryZ]

To summarise the thread:

Many people are saying why its a really bad idea that's full of holes, proposed by people who have had to change their tune when their claims have been exposed.

A tiny number of people have some very flimsy arguments for its existence.

Seems like the pendulum is very heavily towards against, with some sound arguments for that position.

Sounds great for your side, then. All you need to do is to relax and wait for the MQA corpse to float by. Why expend ALL this energy to kill a dying enemy?

 

[Shadders]

Sounds great for your side, then. All you need to do is to relax and wait for the MQA corpse to float by. Why expend ALL this energy to kill a dying enemy?

Hi,
People are responding to the false claims stated by people on this website. That is all.
Regards,
Shadders.

 

[Emlin]

I have no doubt that MQA is lossy and some of the claims made for it are wrong or overstated. But please, point me out a detail that is audible on an original recording and inaudible on an MQA derivative.

I point you to the word "lossy". "MQA reveals every detail of the original recording." Can't do that as it's lossy. Not every detail. And they don't say "to the humble human ear", they say, therefore "to the DAC", or "to the speakers". More likely they mean "our livelihoods depend on selling you this shit, and, as we don't give a flying duck about you, we're going to take your money by any means."

 

[DimitryZ]

Hi,
People are responding to the false claims stated by people on this website. That is all.
Regards,
Shadders.

Really? These kinds of claims are made routinely in every product advertising in most experiential fields of business. Food, wine, cars, audio - all of them claim that their "thing" is experientially superior. "Reveal every detail of recording" is found every day in every audio mag. There is probably a professional ad-men defense of the use of that phrase that has been litigated before.

 

[Tin]

An excellent point. I have done extensive comparison between Qobuz/LPCM and Tidal/MQA and reported the audible differences to be within a margin of preference. That is, some audiophiles with certain systems may prefer one and others will favor another. They compete on equal footing, which is excellent empirical evidence that MQA has, at least, a right to try to compete in the marketplace.

The problem is, anti-MQA crowds isn't satisfied with allowing a market solution to emerge. They want to kill MQA be extra-market means (note the new appeals to complain to "authorities"), in order to defend the legacy technology.

When using phrases like 'many audiophiles' and 'some audiophiles' please add citations.

 

[DimitryZ]

I point you to the word "lossy". "MQA reveals every detail of the original recording." Can't do that as it's lossy. Not every detail. And they don't say "to the humble human ear", they say, therefore "to the DAC", or "to the speakers". More likely they mean "our livelihoods depend on selling you this shit, and, as we don't give a flying duck about you, we're going to take your money by any means."

You really must think of yourself as a truly powerless individual.

 

[Tin]

Really? These kinds of claims are made routinely in every product advertising in most experiential fields of business. Food, wine, cars, audio - all of them claim that their "thing" is experientially superior. "Reveal every detail of recording" is found every day in every audio mag. There is probably a professional ad-men defense of the use of that phrase that has been litigated before.

That may be the case in the USA, but in Europe we have regulations to protect customers against schemes.
But anyway, you're not disputing that MQA uses false advertising, which is a nice first step.

I just wonder if you can manage the whole stairs before being moderated to oblivion. I'm keen to follow your progress.

 

[DimitryZ]

When using phrases like 'many audiophiles' and 'some audiophiles' please add citations.

Go read the super-long MQA thread on PS Audio website that I published the link to. Some audiophiles were pro MQA, some were against. Same with the press. It's called empirical evidence. Even on this thread, there are a number of individuals reading that may have a positive or neutral opinion of MQA, but they don't want to be called "paid shills" or "psychotic", like I have been on this thread multiple times, so they refrain from posting their opinions...it's allright, your moderator doesn't seem to mind.