Lenbrook Acquires MQA!

[RCanelas]

We have lossless, perfectly usable formats available.

We don't want a closed format to distribute or produce our music.
We don't want black box solutions that obviously (from day one) relied on impossible claims.
We don't want technical impositions on our DACs that are not transparent for both manufacturers and consumers.
We don't want people running that format, or part of the chain of music production and reproduction that are not accountable for lying publicly and make a living by charging for a product based on false premises.
We don't need prophets preaching at every corner that they heard the light, something only they can do because the mystery godsend Peter McGrath's files are not public. Of course if you pleebs haven't heard them you can't disagree with my opinion from an informed position. Of course Peter would never add a bit of sparkle to what are essentially marketing files just to tip the scale.
Nevermind the millions of mqa tracks available that are deemed over and over again as 'the same as the flac', at best. Objectively they are the same file plus noise, so... worst.

I really don't understand the obsession with mqa. It is something that every music lover should want to torch with holy water. Repeatedly. And then napalm. Best analogy I can find are car manufacturers charging a monthly fee for seat warmers. It is that imbecile, dystopian and will hopefully end the same way.

 

[Elliot G.]

" the words of the prophets are written on the subway walk"
On this subject If they say enough times someone might actually believe it.
I spoke of influence in the thread on long term loans. perhaps there is some of that influence being used in the MQA arena?
things that make you go hmmmm!

 

[Lee]

" the words of the prophets are written on the subway walk"
On this subject If they say enough times someone might actually believe it.
I spoke of influence in the thread on long term loans. perhaps there is some of that influence being used in the MQA arena?
things that make you go hmmmm!

Not with me. I have never been paid by MQA.

When you and Chris drive back through Atlanta, let me know and I can play some files with and without MQA encoding the demonstrate the sonic improvements from Stuart's filtering.

 

[Lee]

We have lossless, perfectly usable formats available.

We don't want a closed format to distribute or produce our music.
We don't want black box solutions that obviously (from day one) relied on impossible claims.
We don't want technical impositions on our DACs that are not transparent for both manufacturers and consumers.
We don't want people running that format, or part of the chain of music production and reproduction that are not accountable for lying publicly and make a living by charging for a product based on false premises.
We don't need prophets preaching at every corner that they heard the light, something only they can do because the mystery godsend Peter McGrath's files are not public. Of course if you pleebs haven't heard them you can't disagree with my opinion from an informed position. Of course Peter would never add a bit of sparkle to what are essentially marketing files just to tip the scale.
Nevermind the millions of mqa tracks available that are deemed over and over again as 'the same as the flac', at best. Objectively they are the same file plus noise, so... worst.

I really don't understand the obsession with mqa. It is something that every music lover should want to torch with holy water. Repeatedly. And then napalm. Best analogy I can find are car manufacturers charging a monthly fee for seat warmers. It is that imbecile, dystopian and will hopefully end the same way.

Peter cannot share his files publicly because of music rights issues with the orchestras he records. But you can listen to Tidal MQA files and compare them with Qobuz. In my experience both streaming services do a good job but there are many bands that have encoded MQA files which sound better than their equivalent PCM hires files. The Yello albums are an example of this imho.

 

[RCanelas]

Peter cannot share his files publicly because of music rights issues with the orchestras he records. But you can listen to Tidal MQA files and compare them with Qobuz. In my experience both streaming services do a good job but there are many bands that have encoded MQA files which sound better than their equivalent PCM hires files. The Yello albums are an example of this imho.

I truly don't agree they sound any better, nor do I know of anyone that do. When listening to those in a proper DAC (non-mqa lossy black magic processing enabled) they either sound the same or just slightly different.

It is convenient that the ultimate proof of mqa superiority is not accessible to anyone. I'm sure 30 sec snippets would be just fine to share around. But then the secret would be out, everyone could see why they sound different. And my bet is not on the lossy encoding.

On the other hand the demonstration of how the thing works (and the fact that it is lossy, in the worst possible manner) is public. So are the marketing and direct communications of the people involved in the scam throughout its lifecycle.

I'll repeat myself: it is technically inferior, based on an actively propagated lie and a clear money grab by relying on a monetization scheme that implies trying to corner the market all the way from the production to the reproduction, including distribution by cutting strategic deals that force scaling. It is a music consumers nightmare, painted pink and covered with a big fluffy wig.

This is a weird hill to die on.

 

[Al M.]

This is a weird hill to die on.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think a single person on WBF other than Lee will defend MQA anymore (while some might have done so in the past).

Willing to die on that hill is futile.

 

[microstrip]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think a single person on WBF other than Lee will defend MQA anymore (while some might have done so in the past).

Willing to die on that hill is futile.

Some people have an open mind and have read from all sides of the argumentation about MQA. I separate the business and marketing strategy side of MQA from the audio science involved in MQA, as well from any discussions about subjective sound quality.

Surely I do not expect audio forums to carry a decent or serious debate on MQA, particularly WBF. We do not manage to debate simple audio affairs without flamed posts and personnel insinuations, what can we expect from a complex subject such as MQA?

BTW, sorry Al. M, but asking if someone will defend MQA anymore is just asking for coffee talk and vulgarity on it. As always, IMHO and YMMV.

 

[Lee]

I truly don't agree they sound any better, nor do I know of anyone that do. When listening to those in a proper DAC (non-mqa lossy black magic processing enabled) they either sound the same or just slightly different.

It is convenient that the ultimate proof of mqa superiority is not accessible to anyone. I'm sure 30 sec snippets would be just fine to share around. But then the secret would be out, everyone could see why they sound different. And my bet is not on the lossy encoding.

On the other hand the demonstration of how the thing works (and the fact that it is lossy, in the worst possible manner) is public. So are the marketing and direct communications of the people involved in the scam throughout its lifecycle.

I'll repeat myself: it is technically inferior, based on an actively propagated lie and a clear money grab by relying on a monetization scheme that implies trying to corner the market all the way from the production to the reproduction, including distribution by cutting strategic deals that force scaling. It is a music consumers nightmare, painted pink and covered with a big fluffy wig.

This is a weird hill to die on.

Sorry Ricardo but I am just reporting my honest take on what I am hearing with the MQA algorithms. No one has ever forced the consumer to buy Tidal. It's an individual choice and I personally hear a beneficial difference.

 

[Lee]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think a single person on WBF other than Lee will defend MQA anymore (while some might have done so in the past).

Willing to die on that hill is futile.

There is in fact an illustrious list of defenders: Bob Ludwig, George Massenberg, Peter McGrath, Morten Lindberg, and many others who tested and approved it at all the major record labels.

 

[Al M.]

There is in fact an illustrious list of defenders: Bob Ludwig, George Massenberg, Peter McGrath, Morten Lindberg, and many others who tested and approved it at all the major record labels.

I talked about people on WBF.

 

[Daverich4]

There is in fact an illustrious list of defenders: Bob Ludwig, George Massenberg, Peter McGrath, Morten Lindberg, and many others who tested and approved it at all the major record labels.

Do we really have to do this again? Can’t you just drop it? You’ve been an MQA evangelist since the beginning, we get that. No one is going to change your mind and you aren’t going to change theirs. You’’re excited because someone showed up to beat the dead horse. How about if we all just move on?

 

[Lee]

Do we really have to do this again? Can’t you just drop it? You’ve been an MQA evangelist since the beginning, we get that. No one is going to change your mind and you aren’t going to change theirs. You’’re excited because someone showed up to beat the dead horse. How about if we all just move on?

So having a different and unpopular opinion makes me an “evangelist”?

Do I get a private jet like a televangelist? That could be fun.

 

[Lee]

I talked about people on WBF.

Well yeah but most WBF people don’t believe there has been any technology advancement in audio since the 30s.

 

[treitz3]

This is a weird hill to die on.

Agreed.

Tom

 

[Dustin Symanski]

MQA did not need resurrection...

 

[bryans]

I see we have another topic where the end goal appears to be getting a Like click. If one doesn't like MQA or whatever don't listen to it.

I never understood all of the fuss when all one has to do is select a Non MQA track.

 

[ferenc_k]

I talked about people on WBF.

Like me?

I like MQA. I am with Lee.

I even got our DXD, DSD My Reel Club® label's recordings processed in MQA.

So what?

 

[ferenc_k]

There is in fact an illustrious list of defenders: Bob Ludwig, George Massenberg, Peter McGrath, Morten Lindberg, and many others who tested and approved it at all the major record labels.

Those arguing against MQA seem to forget, that MQA is licensed by the labels (on the content side) and the 3 largest labels (Warner, Universal, Sony) plus a few very important, quality-oriented smaller labels like 2L, ECM, etc MQA processed roughly 20 million tracks and uploaded MQA tracks daily up to Tidal. On the other end of the listening chain, MQA is licensed by chip manufacturers (XMOS, ESS, etc) and software (service) providers like Roon, Audirvana, Tidal, etc.

MQA CDs are popular and made in Asia as well. I think Lenbrook made a good decision.

Any of us can make a decision to play MQA processed tracks or not, or purchase MQA capable devices or not.

 

[dsyzling]

I see we have another topic where the end goal appears to be getting a Like click. If one doesn't like MQA or whatever don't listen to it.

I never understood all of the fuss when all one has to do is select a Non MQA track.

I'd agree with the sentiment, let the customer choose. Give the choice of streaming the track in MQA or streaming the pure flac/wav/no mqa version. But the consumer was never given the choice on Tidal - all tracks were slowly converted to MQA because the marketing was all about convincing people that the MQA version played on a non MQA dac was the same as the non mqa version. In addition why would a streaming service carry multiple copies of the same track in MQA and non MQA consuming more storage - so I get the issues, but that's not consumer choice and was never about consumer choice - it was about injecting themselves into an end to end process - which is frankly the story of the music business - shaving money from every step of the process where the artist ends up with a tiny piece.

So you could then say - well go to other streaming services who don't carry MQA - which is a valid point, but the goal was always to just provide MQA version, that MQA would evolve to become the master that was shipped to all streaming services. Hires versions of the tracks were also not to be provided to consumers because MQA oragami is good enough, so again removing choice from customers. Except I doubt Apple ever bought into the MQA technical description and would much rather push their own spatial audio products, so it stalled with Tidal.

But if you say all streaming services carry both version along with the full hires versions and let the customer choose - then great, I'm pro consumer choice, not with an industry closing down or removing my options.

 

[christoph]

Not answering in this thread let's the thread "disappear"