• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Now we know why Amir is pro-MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pillars

Active Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
Messages
291
Likes
216
Not exactly.. there's more to the picture than just an audio analyzer. A pappermint and spearmint weigh the same, but don't taste the same. We aren't measuring everything.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
Not exactly.. there's more to the picture than just an audio analyzer. A pappermint and spearmint weigh the same, but don't taste the same. We aren't measuring everything.

Poor analogies aren't a substitute for data from controlled experiments. So... do you have any? That's how science works.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
Not everyone, just the rational, intelligent, unbiased, intellectually honest types.
I have not seen that in many anti MQA folks. Most are emotionally against it first and foremost. But maybe you surprise me. :)
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
The Peter Principle is becoming far too obvious on this forum, unfortunately. :rolleyes:
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
Well, I've got some amps that measure pretty darn close that sound different. Must be ear problems :( Jotunheim and THX789 for instance, their differences shouldn't be audible but - one sounds like a wall of sound and the other quite spacious. Measurements show precise things that are being looked for but never catch it all.

The truth is actually very simple: in the scenario where you wouldn't know which one you are listening you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

The difference between your and my statement is that mine can be proved and yours can't, so you have to believe in it. Which is ok for me, just don't ask others to believe in that too, as most folks joined this forum to learn facts not beliefs. ;)
 

Pillars

Active Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
Messages
291
Likes
216
I like them both for unique reasons. You've nothing to prove they are entirely the same except for some measurements of specific tones and square waves. So, why have an interest in audio when anymore everything sounds the same?
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
I like them both for unique reasons. You've nothing to prove they are entirely the same except for some measurements of specific tones and square waves. So, why have an interest in audio when anymore everything sounds the same?

"Except for some measurements"? Heh.. Trust me, double blind test would also prove they sound the same.

Put your energy into speakers/headphones. They don't sound the same, and as long they are using this technology they never will.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
So, why have an interest in audio when anymore everything sounds the same?

So, do you have data to back up your claims? I cannot help but notice you have avoided answering that question. Do we take the non-answer as a "no, I'm just making these claims without any actual evidence other than belief"?
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Not exactly.. there's more to the picture than just an audio analyzer. A pappermint and spearmint weigh the same, but don't taste the same. We aren't measuring everything.

Must have missed the part of the thread where it was argued that any two amplifiers that weigh the same must sound the same. Does this include the weight of the case and connectors or just the electronic components?

Well, I've got some amps that measure pretty darn close that sound different. Must be ear problems :( Jotunheim and THX789 for instance, their differences shouldn't be audible but - one sounds like a wall of sound and the other quite spacious. Measurements show precise things that are being looked for but never catch it all.

What's the rest of your system?
 

The Dragon

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
75
Likes
152

Nothing has inflamed me more in the last few years as an engineer and an audiophile more than this MQA nonsense. Is there a need for this? No. Let's take MQA's pitch one piece at a time and decode it. MQA marketing pitch is in quotes.

About MQA
"Using pioneering scientific research into how people hear, the MQA team has created a technology that captures the sound of the original studio performance."

OK, this statement seems to imply that somehow studios are NOT capable of capturing the original studio performance without MQA? Are you kidding me? They have doing this for years. No MQA has ever been required to do this. Not ever. It is certainly not required now. But, something could always be ADDED to the signal to make it sound better. Ever heard of an "aural exciter". Not me, I want it how it was recorded. Next...

"The master MQA file is fully authenticated and is small enough to stream"

This means MQA is going to take the recorded digital file, perform data encryption, then compress it and store it in a proprietary format that no one else can read.

"while also being backward compatible, so you can play MQA music on any device."

Notice they call the file "MQA music" at this point. This is an important distinction. It is no longer a normal uncompressed high resolution digital audio file. This statement also attempts to diffuse any concerns about their control over the music file YOU just purchased. Yes, you can play it on non-MQA equipment, just not at full resolution. What a deal, huh? They are in full control at this point. ..... but it's OK, right? Keep telling yourself that. You have data rights to that file. Just not full data rights unless you open your wallet to purchase an MQA device. Even then, you cannot open it, manipulate it, use a DSP with it. An MQA file is locked down - period.

"MQA’s award-winning technology is licensed by labels, music services and hardware manufacturers worldwide and is certified by the RIAA."

Sure it is licensed by labels, they finally have control of DRM again! Stuart has had a long fight getting the industry on board. I guarantee the only reason you are seeing the incorporation of this by the industry is that the music industry gains control, which means more $$$$. Also, the audio industry gets their share I'm sure. There is absolutely no technical merit to MQA, none. There is a reason Stuart will not share any of the real technical details. MQA puts control of your music in the hands of MQA, a UK-based private company.

The Trojan horse has arrived folks. Remember, control is power. That is what they are after. It is not about creating smaller files for streaming. It is not about true studio sound quality. This is not needed in today's world of HDTV streaming. Yes, we have the technology to stream HiRes audio files right now without MQA. HDTV requires much more bandwidth than audio by itself. That argument is moot.
I guess by now you have figured out that I am not buying the MQA BS. If you feel like you have to have that little MQA light to light up on your player or DAC to feel good, then fine. I don't. But, these are only my views on the subject.

Peace and good will to all.

MQA is a UK-based private company. For more information visit www.mqa.co.uk
 
Last edited:

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,635
Likes
7,485
I think it's worth saying that nobody actually needs MQA and nobody actually has to buy into it.

True - although I think the anti-MQA sentiment (of which I am a part) would be significantly less passionate (or strident, as one prefers) if MQA did not, by its own statements, seek an "ecosystem" and have 20+% major-label ownership. MQA seeks to insert itself, and its licensing fees, in the entire recording, production, mastering, and production chain. "One file, many platforms" is their aim - meaning their goal is that redbook and high-res streaming and digital downloads, along with CDs, will all be generated from MQA files and listenable in their full, unfolded resolution only with MQA-licensed equipment.

Now, I'm not saying I think MQA will succeed in that quest - but this predatory, vertically integrated goal of theirs is what shapes much of the critique of MQA. If their technology makes music sound worse, or no better, than conventional PCM, then of course we could just ignore MQA - except when it becomes possible that this worse and/or more expensive, DRM'd format will replace conventional PCM. Then that becomes a threat.

In this regard, it's notable that MQA's most consistent and vocal supporters (MQA itself along with a selection of industry writers) constantly hop from technical claims ("it sounds better and captures master tape sound") to "ecosystem" claims ("MQA authentication ensures people are getting the best quality files/CDs"), to DRM claims ("MQA encoding allows the labels to avoid giving away the 'crown jewels' of their original high-res PCM masters"). Without the ecosystem and DRM pieces, the format becomes exposed as irrelevant, and the arguments against its technical merit would get a lot more unobstructed focus and scrutiny.
 
Last edited:

The Dragon

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
75
Likes
152
Hey, it's a great way to generate residual income off of something you did not author - music. MQA is a genius business model, but it does nothing for the audiophile except lighten our wallets and limit what we can do with our music files. It's very similar to the Dolby NR model of the late '70s. So it's not an original concept as far as a business model goes...
 

The Dragon

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
75
Likes
152
I don't know how many of you have read the Ultimaco paper on MQA. Ultimaco is the encryption company MQA has contracted with. The last paragraph is all telling::

"The success criteria: hardened encryption, empowering the revolution Critical to the continued success and monetization of the streaming and download services of the entertainment industry, is the ability to secure and safeguard end-to-end transmission of intellectual property. A market leader in hardened encryption, Utimaco is at the forefront of enabling the authenticated delivery needed to drive next-generation entertainment consumption. "
 

DuxServit

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
428
Likes
508
I didn’t realize Amir was in the Meat Quality Assurance (MQA) industry. ;)
 

Hugo9000

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
574
Likes
1,749
Location
U.S.A. | Слава Україні
By people, he actually means owls. Really.
I wonder why MQA's reps have been so coy about that. Everyone in the Hundred Acre Wood knows that Owl is the greatest and wisest expert on everything, so mentions of him would surely be a more effective appeal to authority than blathering about Bob.

Authority owl.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom