Now we know why Amir is pro-MQA

[Thomas savage]

It’s been evident for any intelligent being that MQA is not about «remastering» or «hand-tuned». MQA is an algorithm, to convert existing files into MQA version by means of machine - not intelligent man.

@RayDunzl put figures on what we (except @amirm) knew all the time. The «level of effort» on MQA’s side is zero. It baffles me it’s possible to think otherwise.

So it seems like @amirm is being the naive one here, phantasizing about «hand tuned».

No, I’m not for MQA but you do totally miss why one could consider it ‘ worth a go’ . I guess perspective or lack there of is crucial here. Yours is stuck ridged, mines a little more flexible however Iv still no use for MQA but then it’s not about me..

 

[Krunok]

I’m guilty of spending £40 on taxi home from the brewery only for mother to mess up me pork chops , the fat and rind was not cooked right.

Back to MQA , it’s a bit of a non event ... isn’t it?

Obviously not. There's only one way I see for you and @amirm to get out of this MQA mess and that is to publicly throw a lot of ash on your heads. Oh, and don't forget the pants, too.

 

[Thomas savage]

Obviously not. There's only one way I see for you and @amirm to get out of this MQA mess and that is to publicly throw a lot of ash on your heads. Oh, and don't forget the pants, too.

Now would you talk to your doctor like this ?

 

[Krunok]

Now would you talk to your doctor like this ?

 

[Krunok]

Now would you talk to your doctor like this ?

Yep, to my doctor I would, but to my dentist - no fckn way..

 

[Sal1950]

Back to MQA , it’s a bit of a non event ... isn’t it?

???, I'm a bit confused on how you can say that Thomas. The reality of the numbers Ray posted, the appearance of MQA CD's, MQA HDA downloads from 2L, Onkyo music, eonkyo, hghresaudio, the decoding software and hardware on phones, DACs, preamps, recievers, etc, etc, etc. MQA appears more like a codec juggernaut rather than a "non-event" to me.

 

[Thomas savage]

???, I'm a bit confused on how you can say that Thomas. The reality of the numbers Ray posted, the appearance of MQA CD's, MQA HDA downloads from 2L, Onkyo music, eonkyo, hghresaudio, the decoding software and hardware on phones, DACs, preamps, recievers, etc, etc, etc. MQA appears more like a codec juggernaut rather than a "non-event" to me.

Simple 99% of civilisation has no clue or intrest in MQA and likely will live a full live never knowing of it. No one I know has a single clue what it is , they stream stuff through Spotify.

It’s good to get out the bubble now and then.

 

[svart-hvitt]

No, I’m not for MQA but you do . I guess perspective or lack there of is crucial here. Your is stuck ridged, mines a little more flexible however Iv still no use for MQA but then it’s not about me..

@Thomas savage , you wrote that I «totally miss why one could consider it ‘ worth a go’».

It seems like I am not the only one. Most if not all ASR members don’t get the «worth a go», in addition to people like Archimago and mastering engineers at Gearslutz.

I don’t like it when I am first accused of lying (so I needed to find the old comments where @amirm writes about «hand tuned») and then accused of not seeing the point of MQA («worth a go»).

The moderator job is a difficult one and accidents happen. So no hard feelings, though.

 

[March Audio]

Every new audio format including international standards are created with intention of #1. Huge amount of effort goes into them and people/companies expect to get paid for their efforts.

Hardly any Audio/video standard is "above board." Indeed they are the exact opposite: a cartel of companies get together, create an international standard which has force of law in some countries, and then, after the format is published, get together and decide how much to charge everyone. Think MPEG. Think Blu-ray. Think AVC video codec. Think AAC. All open standards (sans blu-ray). All demanding royalties, and litigate like mad if you don't pay. See a case I was involved in a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel-Lucent_v._Microsoft_Corp.

"Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc. 470 F.Supp.2d 1180 (S.D.Cal.,2007) is a patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. "

1.53 billion dollars just for one bit of technology related to MP3.

Now, you say that the technology is not aimed at the consumer. Of course it is. High-resolution audio "is a thing." It puts a smile on many people's face when they get content at higher sample rate as the CD. So "demand" exists to some extent or there would be no adoption.

Companies like Google push in-house codecs with little value over other competitors/hence no consumer demand (think VP9) but that is Google, not MQA.

In summary, there is some demand from consumer point of view, and hence some adoption.

Problem is that MQA is too small of a company and has too little resources to get broad adoption of a new format. And because the format only solves a problem for a fraction of music listening world, it just has no chance of world dominance. Companies like Apple, and Amazon, simply have no interest in adopting it.

Major hardware companies like Sony, etc. also don't care yet about MQA. Once they do, they will go after them with patent litigation just the same before they are allowed to get anywhere big.

What all this boils down to is very, very modest adoption of the format with no damage to anyone.

You have mentioned various royalty earning licensed technologies. The problem here is that most of the ones you mentioned enabled new consumer technology or provide demonstrable technical improvements or benefits.

MQA does neither. It does not benefit the consumer, but does cost them as they need to buy new equipment that supports it.

 

[JJB70]

If we step out of the audio enthusiast bubble then I think the whole MQA argument is the equivalent of two bald men arguing over a comb. Very few people are bothered in the slightest about high res and few have any interest in hi-fi (or it may be more accurate to say that most believe Bose BT speakers are hi-fi). I think that is why the high end of hi-fi has got so silly, it is a micro-niche for a small number of people to exist in an echo chamber and manufacturers need to make higher margins from fewer sales, you can see a similar trajectory in other hobbies.

 

[Thomas savage]

@Thomas savage , you wrote that I «totally miss why one could consider it ‘ worth a go’».

It seems like I am not the only one. Most if not all ASR members don’t get the «worth a go», in addition to people like Archimago and mastering engineers at Gearslutz.

I don’t like it when I am first accused of lying (so I needed to find the old comments where @amirm writes about «hand tuned») and then accused of not seeing the point of MQA («worth a go»).

The moderator job is a difficult one and accidents happen. So no hard feelings, though.

Hey you have misrepresented something, have little or no perspective beyond your own ideals regarding MQA then assumed and prescribed limits of reason to poor old amir and now it seems to me.
There’s a ton of pages on the subject,think what you like but don’t think for a minute yours is the only perspective.

And please don’t start giving me grief about moderation as that’s got nothing to do with MQA, this discourse or your own inability to see beyond yourself.

Also you’ve miss quoted me.. just quote what Iv said and not some abridged version . Frankly thats offensive. And when did I accuse you of lying ??

Christ.

 

[Cosmik]

If we step out of the audio enthusiast bubble then I think the whole MQA argument is the equivalent of two bald men arguing over a comb. Very few people are bothered in the slightest about high res and few have any interest in hi-fi (or it may be more accurate to say that most believe Bose BT speakers are hi-fi). I think that is why the high end of hi-fi has got so silly, it is a micro-niche for a small number of people to exist in an echo chamber and manufacturers need to make higher margins from fewer sales, you can see a similar trajectory in other hobbies.

I dare say the same was true at one time for LP, cassette, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, Dolby, VHS etc. But it didn't stop them eventually impinging on *everyone's* consumption of music and video. The state of MQA now is no indication of its future state -it is a non-argument. You can only dismiss the potential for MQA to spread by logically saying why, if some streaming sites and hardware manufacturers have already signed up to it, the majority will not. Are the ones who have not signed up guaranteed never to sign up to it? Why? Is there a critical mass beyond which it could become the universal streaming format? Is that critical mass guaranteed never to be reached?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Hey you have misrepresented something, have little or no perspective beyond your own ideals regarding MQA then assumed and prescribed limits of reason to poor old amir and now it seems to me.
There’s a ton of pages on the subject,think what you like but don’t think for a minute yours is the only perspective.

And please don’t start giving me grief about moderation as that’s got nothing to do with MQA, this discourse or your own inability to see beyond yourself.

Also you’ve miss quoted me.. just quote what Iv said and not some abridged version . Frankly that offensive.

I clipped the entire comment of yours and @amirm above for everyone to see. That is transparency, isn’t it.

Because many people really think MQA will remaster, i.e. put intellectual value behind MQA versions beyond what an algorithm does, it’s a disservice by you and @amirm to keep this phantasy alive. @RayDunzl ’s back of the envelope calculation showed that the emperor is naked; there is zero level of effort on MQA’s side behind an «MQA Master».

Everyone can go back a few comments and see and evaluate for themselves if I am hearing voices in the air or not.

It seems clearer and clearer that ASR’s official position on MQA is a positive one.

 

[March Audio]

I dare say the same was true at one time for LP, cassette, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, Dolby, VHS etc. But it didn't stop them eventually impinging on *everyone's* consumption of music and video. The state of MQA now is no indication of its future state -it is a non-argument. You can only dismiss the potential for MQA to spread by logically saying why, if some streaming sites and hardware manufacturers have already signed up to it, the majority will not. Are the ones who have not signed up guaranteed never to sign up to it? Why? Is there a critical mass beyond which it could become the universal streaming format? Is that critical mass guaranteed never to be reached?

... And this is the issue that people object to. Its a land grab to generate licensing income, it would be naive to think otherwise.

This wouldn't really be an issue if it enabled new consumer technology, or provided demonstrable technical benefits............ But it simply doesn't.

 

[Thomas savage]

I clipped the entire comment of yours and @amirm above for everyone to see. That is transparency, isn’t it.

Because many people really think MQA will remaster, i.e. put intellectual value behind MQA versions beyond what an algorithm does, it’s a disservice by you and @amirm to keep this phantasy alive. @RayDunzl ’s back of the envelope calculation showed that the emperor is naked; there is zero level of effort on MQA’s side behind an «MQA Master».

Everyone can go back a few comments and see and evaluate for themselves if I am hearing voices in the air or not.

It seems clearer and clearer that ASR’s official position on MQA is a positive one.

 

[Thomas savage]

View attachment 19275

What I actually said

 

[Thomas savage]

I
It seems clearer and clearer that ASR’s official position on MQA is a positive one.

Now your mis quote is shown , let’s address this hysterical nonsense . How many times do I have to say I’m not that enamoured with MQA , when your not trying to dishonesty embroile me in some ASR conspiracy it clear that the only guy here that likes it is amir and his reasons are coming from a very different perspective to yours , mine or anyone else here i see.

Personally I don’t care for it but having read through many many pages I do find amirs perspective to be enlightening and worthwhile.

I still don’t like MQA and there’s no bloody forum position on the technology,if there was it would follow the consensus that it’s kinda shite.

Now please leave this dishonest hysteria about ‘ forum position’ and indeed the crap about me a accusing you of lying behind and your false accusations about mastering and what I’m asserting about that , realise as it’s plain above you misquoted me and get on with something other than convincing yourself we are MQA shills.

 

[Cosmik]

I don't think the debate should be focusing on the hi res aspect that naturally makes it seem like some ridiculous, esoteric corner of audio. I don't see why the eventual endgame shouldn't be the playback of all streaming/download music via the MQA digital gatekeeper that, in a few years, may be universally fitted to all new audio devices because of consumer demand.

I wonder if some people don't actually realise how trivial an audio file 'format' is. There's this idea that MQA is special because it's compatible with non-MQA playback at a slightly degraded quality. Well that's just one way of encoding the bits. At some point in the future when there is no net commercial disadvantage to doing so, MQA files could start being distributed in scrambled form with only MQA chips being capable of decoding them - and refusing to play back non-authenticated files. If it's true that "any company that embarks on creating a new file format wants world domination" then I don't see how this is not being considered.

 

[Hugo9000]

I hate MQA's "business model" and deceptions regarding "white glove," "deblurring" by means of individualized tuning or fingerprinting or whatever they wanted us to think they were doing with every AD converter used in recordings dating back decades, etc. I also have zero respect for Bob S. That said, I wonder what purpose is served by two current threads which call out our host and his forum as if they are the primary, secondary, or even remotely significant proponents of MQA.

Granted, I was only a lurker on this site for a few years, and only recently a member and limited poster (and not a valuable one at that, as I have no expertise to share with anyone here). Is there a thread or sticky on ASR that I've missed where @amirm has written an editorial outlining advocacy of MQA and urging members and casual readers here to aid in its adoption? It seems pretty obvious that whatever the extent of his personal views on MQA or its creator, he is not silencing any critics. Time and again I see his courteous replies to obvious sarcasm and what sometimes appear to simply be personal attacks. That's not the behavior of someone out to "censor" or silence viewpoints. And even if his posts on the subject actually do (or appear to) advocate MQA and what it stands for, he is still providing a forum for people to openly express their opposition to MQA as well as every other subject in audio. So why the vitriol against him? I don't get it. If someone insists on one viewpoint only being expressed, perhaps that person should create his own website or forum with his own rules on posting and expression. Big deal if a thread was locked. It's still there for anyone to read. It wasn't erased from the site. And now there is this thread with its rude title that has gone to over 200 posts already. Plus the small thread that tries to link Amir directly to snake oil salesmen. smh

 

[svart-hvitt]

Now your mis quote is shown , let’s address this hysterical nonsense . How many times do I have to say I’m not that enamoured with MQA , when your not trying to dishonesty embroile me in some ASR conspiracy it clear that the only guy here that likes it is amir and his reasons are coming from a very different perspective to yours , mine or anyone else here i see.

Personally I don’t care for it but having read through many many pages I do find amirs perspective to be enlightening and worthwhile.

I still don’t like MQA and there’s no bloody forum position on the technology,if there was it would follow the consensus that it’s kinda shite.

Now please leave this dishonest hysteria about ‘ forum position’ and indeed the crap about me a accusing you of lying behind , realise as it’s plain above you misquoted me and get on with something other than convincing yourself we are MQA shills.

@amirm ’s and by extension ASR’s problem is that he describes rent-seeking* without being able to see rent-seeking in action.

This blindness, (cfr. Emperor’s Clothes analogy), cast doubt on his work which is otherwise good.

All ASR members see that MQA is interesting from the rent seeker’s perspective. And from labels’ perspective too. But from a consumer perspective MQA is lose-lose.


*RENT SEEKING: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking