Article: A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart

[The Computer Audiophile]

I was not aware of the "special" CD-R's - interesting and yet another indication that what all this is really about is the business model (whether it is thought of in terms of being "broken" or not) and the need of the industry to monetize what they have in the face of technology and the "digital revolution".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Blank_music_CDs_and_recorders

[Lighthouse]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that data, metadata - anything is being encrypted in MQA 1.0 (though Meridian employs encryption in their wireless speaker designs for some unspecified reason, even though the data is {supposedly} just the customers PCM/DSD). What I am saying is that any specific technical implementation of DRM is beside the point because MQA 1.0 is already DRM (an end user who does not have an MQA DAC or software decoder is "managed" such that he can only hear 16/44) and the real world business case for MQA is all DRM all day long - SQ is just the "hook" to bring consumers in. Of course, with legal entities such as MQA the consumer has no say at all as to what happens in the future (in MQA 2.0 for example)...

 

The "trust" issue is central, however I think it is important to remember that there will always be this "tension" between consumers and business interests in any marketplace. In the digital music realm, there are analogues that we can look at. For example, we can look a video (VHS/taping in the eighties, DVD and congress in the nineties, etc.). I think consumers have to be vigilant when it comes to IP protected file formats (such as MQA) because the law and courts really do steamroll over their alleged "rights" most of the time, and this is expected because consumers do not have multiple "lobby" groups paying off our lawmakers ...

 

I have hard time telling this is just a "tension."

 

Consider the fact that music industry (and content industry in general) is probably one of few industries that companies themselves actively suing their own customers all the time while trying to pass really crappy laws such as SOPA.

 

The truth is no other industry has such this crazy "tension" (except maybe petroleum industry). No matter how people spin it, this is just plain unhealthy to both the companies and customers.

 

And we are seeing a full consequence of this "tension." If one would think people here in CA are too cynical to MQA.....

[jcbenten]

What I do not understand is why the Music Industry is interested in "better sound quality" but is crushing the dynamic range of music? (Note: I am talking mainly the large labels for rock/pop. I have no idea on classical/jazz.). Will MQA make my ears bleed sooner? Is MQA just another master of music that needs to be purchased in addition to HW purchase? I have been down that route with SACD with compromised HW and SW.

[monteverdi]

I think that was answered in A40

A40. First you can see Morten’s notes about this recording here: https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/468051. Morten wanted to do some minor touch-up on the recording. So, in order that nuance would not be lost, we used our ingestion process to give him 24-bit stems. The simple answer is that the re-release was remastered at 24-bit. The MQA file is made from that new 44.1/24 new master. Had he remastered strictly in a 16-bit context, some original magic might have been lost, but the file would have been smaller.7 In the 2L catalogue there are examples of MQA from 44.1/16 that were not remastered in this way.

 

24 bit vs 16 bits is only a factor of 1.5. I base my observation on the 2L site but I have no idea whether 2L has done the right MQA conversion.

Actually it would be more obvious if and when Tidal starts to stream MQA titles.

[mansr]

24 bit vs 16 bits is only a factor of 1.5. I base my observation on the 2L site but I have no idea whether 2L has done the right MQA conversion.

Actually it would be more obvious if and when Tidal starts to stream MQA titles.

 

The MQA stream doesn't compress well (due to the MQA "noise") as a plain music file, which is why these end up being more than 1.5x larger than the corresponding 16-bit FLAC files.

[VirusKiller]

though Meridian employs encryption in their wireless speaker designs for some unspecified reason, even though the data is {supposedly} just the customers PCM/DSD

Meridian Audio (the UK firm) doesn't make wireless speakers and never has (though ironically many have been wanting them to do so for years). Did you mean something else?

[scintilla]

I never stop being amazed at the paranoia of the software community. As a patent attorney that has peered over the shoulders of a number of inventors in the field over the years, I still marvel at the distrust that some people have; particularly those committed to the open-source community. People interested and willing to pay for the recordings/codecs will buy/stream the product and render opinions until a broad consensus of the technology's merit is reached, good or bad. Others will whine that they don't have free access to the technology/recordings, belittle those that enjoy it and continue buying (or stealing) their music based on other encoding/sources while making stupid assertions about the motivations of others that lack any basis in fact. I'm intrigued by MQA and having been exposed to a couple of the largest software companies, think many of the assertions here to be silly for the base fact that "the industry" is far less capable of the mendacity expected of them based on a great degree of pure incompetence, poor management, lack of vision and most of all inability to coordinate in even the smallest ways between actual linked business units of the same company, let alone in a global conspiracy to deny you your entitled rights-of-man. Some of you need an enema.

[firedog]

 

As far as streaming, I have been thinking that for a new format (such as MQA or something like it) to really take hold of the marketplace it has to "solve" the "broken business model" here also, or at least be part of the solution. Of course, labels so far have not been able (apparently - do we really know?) to monetize streaming quite apart from the more obvious reasoning for DRM. However, I assume that streaming is here to stay and that a viable business model will be worked out.

 

I think the labels are making good money from streaming - it's the songwriters and performers who are getting paid much less than before. If MQA enables more successful streaming - bigger files compressed to be smaller, or easier streaming of higher quality files that can be compressed and then sold at a premium - then the industry has lots of incentive to move to MQA.

[hifi_swlon]

I never stop being amazed at the paranoia of the software community. …..

 

…….while making stupid assertions about the motivations of others that lack any basis in fact.

 

My guess is most people here have nothing to do with the software community, but love music (and probably computer audio), and so have a real interest in finding out what MQA is, and whether its important to them (hardware purchasing etc).

 

Personally, I'd love to think it's a groundbreaking invention, formed out of a passionate persons life's work, and purely aimed at making music better for everyone with little or no downside. I guess deep down that's what we all hope, and wouldn't that be a nice thing for the audio community. Sadly, most assertions are probably made based on the past actions of an industry that doesn't have a great track record in looking after their customers' best interests, to the point where they've generated a lot of mistrust. So while comments aren't based on facts per-se, they're not really 'stupid' - far from it - people are rightly sceptical of the claims. Unfortunately, the way MQA has been presented to date hasn't done anything to dispel any mistrust, which is a real shame if it is genuine, and is probably why even the slightest changes to wording of a question or slightly talking round an answer in this Q&A, would naturally only fuel the fire.

 

BUT, ultimately, it sounds like the success of MQA will have nothing to do with audiophiles anyway, so the discussion is somewhat irrelevant bar making decisions about being an early adopter for MQA downloads or MQA DACs, which it seems is a pretty hard sell right now, not least since hardly any of either exist. MQA is clearly being marketed and aimed at the 'mass market' initially, and if it takes off people who stream will probably end up with it whether they like it or not. If it ends up being incorporated into the most common streaming devices and services (iPhones, iPods, Android Phones, Apple Music, Spotify etc), it will probably survive and expand from there into the download world too.

 

It's worth remembering that the majority of the music consuming world doesn't have high-end gear and aren't obsessed with dynamic ranges, bit-depths, sample rates, noise floors, high-res downloads, and searching for the 'best' version of albums to listen to so they can hear every nuance. None of my friends do really. But most of them love music, and if they were to end up being sent MQA files which sounded good, rather than crappy mp3's, I'd be really happy for them. If it turned out MQA came with downsides that I didn't like personally, I would just ignore it where possible and go elsewhere. But I suppose if in the future MQA was the only file format available to buy, that would be another issue, and I'd have to make a decision in those circumstances as to whether to buy anything or not.

 

I wish MQA would have made steps to put a bit more music out there in MQA format for launch, as well as get a decent amount of hardware certified first. If it does sound truly amazing, and more people would have actually heard it, then I think there would have been a lot less discussion about it.

 

Meanwhile I'm glad there are people out there clever enough to look at all the information available and check it over and ask questions, even if there is a hint of paranoia….

[Ajax]

Hi Chris,

 

I have been a member of this site for 7 years and visit it nearly every day. I am not technically inclined, however, because of your site I am in serious danger of being perceived as a nerd by my family and friends.

 

But what choice do I have when you orchestrate such engaging and informative threads and include first hand information from leading players in the audio industry. You and the many other contributors to CA have taught me so much.

 

I do understand the reservation of some members about MQA such as incorporating some form of DRM, however, having run a small business and knowing the time it entails, I am simply in awe of the effort that Bob has put into answering these questions.

 

Thanks very much to you and Bob for your efforts and good luck with MQA, however, I doubt it will be this community that will determine whether or not it is a success.

 

 

Thanks again,

 

Ajax

[Paul R]

I never stop being amazed at the paranoia of the software community.

 

It isn't paranoia when there are literally 10's of thousands people out there trying to infiltrate and access your systems. Ransomware and such are very real threats. And we have seen software companies promise the moon and deliver nothing, or deliver a crippled product claiming piracy was rampant. Annoying no end.

 

As for coordination - buddy you don't know what coordination is until you have 10 thousand users all clamoring because they want this or that and all of them believing their unrelated degree or experience at home with Microsoft Office makes them smarter than the folks who really do know what they are doing... (*sigh*)

[scintilla]

I'd just like to see the tenor of the discussion come down. I see nothing in Bob's answers that indicates he is hiding anything nefarious. His company is fully entitled to preserve trade-secret techniques that fall outside patent protection and which define the technology of their brand and that is not an indication of a DRM strategy. If I had to make a guess, I'd say all they are doing is porting techniques from bandwidth reduction adaptive coding systems from telecom and applying them for different results; in this case a better realized impulse response end-to-end. A lookahead or feedforward algorithm or even convolutional encoding could be employed in novel ways to address the bitrate as a function of bit-depth/sampling-rate. By merely adjusting the the bit-depth to allow extra channel capacity in a dynamic fashion based on the baseband signals, you can free up capacity to encode the information you deem most important. And that is exactly what I read into Bob's answers. Encoding is decided by the producers based on what they deem essential. I think it is a very clever use of modern processing power. Simple linear PCM is an archaic coding system, designed for telephony and can be bested in real-world implementation. My undergraduate work involved building testing and providing an end-to-end PCM voice telephony system with a model channel to illustrate transmission losses for students in a communications lab. I'm a long way out from that study, but it isn't hard for me to see that people are freaking out over things that really don't have any merit. I eagerly await my own listening sessions with some MQA material.

[Paul R]

My guess is you are correct in your guesses.

[The Fed]

I respect what Bob Stuart is proposing and Ithink it is a novel idea.... Writ large.

But Ithink it is fairly unrealistic once you step outside of the audiophile bubble.

 

I don'tsee how industry giants like Sony (which have both global hardwaredistribution, and large, relevant catalogs of music) will be shoehorned in tousing a proprietary recording, mastering and playback format from a companythat has no where near the same reach into the industry.

 

UnlessMeridian is purchased by Viacom who is able to offer them Global Hegemonicinfluence, I don't see companies like Sony, RCA/ Victor, Warner Bros, UniversalMusic, Def Jam, Philips, Columbia, Capitol etc... being forced to abide byMeridian's proprietary technology.... The main plus of MQA is highquality/compressed files for streaming.

 

Themarket demand for high resolution music is already extremely limited.... NeilYoung wasn't able to change that despite bleating on and on about it foryears... So Tidal and their ilk may not even care about offering highresolution streaming...

 

But ifthey did. I don't think any container that is going to gain industry wideacceptance is going to be locked down by proprietary licensing.

And thetrend that I have seen in the short term is kinda bass ackwards.

 

We'veseen one record label come out in support of MQA... An obscure Scandinavianlabel with a very small catalog and equally small roster of talent.

On theflip side we've seen a fair number of devices on the playback side that areadopting MQA compatibility.

 

So, IMHO,it looks like the same mistake over and over and over.... A format comesalong... HDCD, SACD, High Res, DSD, Audiophiles swoon... Hardware manufacturerscash in by manufacturing High Res, DSD, now MQA compatible hardware that neverdevelops into a viable format because the catalogs of music are ridiculouslysmall.

 

Musicfirst, then hardware.... Otherwise its just another niche ploy to getaudiophiles to buy a new decoder.

 

Donethere, been that.

 

[james45974]

So, IMHO,it looks like the same mistake over and over and over.... A format comesalong... HDCD, SACD, High Res, DSD, Audiophiles swoon... Hardware manufacturerscash in by manufacturing High Res, DSD, now MQA compatible hardware that neverdevelops into a viable format because the catalogs of music are ridiculouslysmall.

 

 

The lack of recordings has definitely killed formats in the past. What is different here is I can "make" a DSD recording here at home by upsampling to a capable DAC, and with excellent results! No need for any purchasing of DSD if I don't want to, a market that is has a limited catalog. I see no home brew MQA being talked about, so unless there is content, there is no market.

[firedog]

I respect what Bob Stuart is proposing and Ithink it is a novel idea.... Writ large.

But Ithink it is fairly unrealistic once you step outside of the audiophile bubble.

 

I don'tsee how industry giants like Sony (which have both global hardwaredistribution, and large, relevant catalogs of music) will be shoehorned in tousing a proprietary recording, mastering and playback format from a companythat has no where near the same reach into the industry.

 

UnlessMeridian is purchased by Viacom who is able to offer them Global Hegemonicinfluence, I don't see companies like Sony, RCA/ Victor, Warner Bros, UniversalMusic, Def Jam, Philips, Columbia, Capitol etc... being forced to abide byMeridian's proprietary technology.... The main plus of MQA is highquality/compressed files for streaming.

 

Themarket demand for high resolution music is already extremely limited.... NeilYoung wasn't able to change that despite bleating on and on about it foryears... So Tidal and their ilk may not even care about offering highresolution streaming...

 

But ifthey did. I don't think any container that is going to gain industry wideacceptance is going to be locked down by proprietary licensing.

And thetrend that I have seen in the short term is kinda bass ackwards.

 

We'veseen one record label come out in support of MQA... An obscure Scandinavianlabel with a very small catalog and equally small roster of talent.

On theflip side we've seen a fair number of devices on the playback side that areadopting MQA compatibility.

 

So, IMHO,it looks like the same mistake over and over and over.... A format comesalong... HDCD, SACD, High Res, DSD, Audiophiles swoon... Hardware manufacturerscash in by manufacturing High Res, DSD, now MQA compatible hardware that neverdevelops into a viable format because the catalogs of music are ridiculouslysmall.

 

Musicfirst, then hardware.... Otherwise its just another niche ploy to getaudiophiles to buy a new decoder.

 

Donethere, been that.

 

 

Your conclusion may be correct, but your idea that big companies won't use a technology sold by a small company - makes no sense. It happens every day. And that doesn't take into account that Bob is well known and respected in the industry, and has had his technologies adopted in the past.

[crenca]

Your conclusion may be correct, but your idea that big companies won't use a technology sold by a small company - makes no sense. It happens every day. And that doesn't take into account that Bob is well known and respected in the industry, and has had his technologies adopted in the past.

 

I think this is right. Sony and others with large catalogs will adopt Meridian's solution (probably by purchasing them and/or the IP) IF it is a part of the solution to the "broken business model" that Robert Harley talks about. One can quibble over the term "broken" or just how "broken" certain aspects really are, but I think there is little doubt that something like MQA would be a welcome aspect of the market (for the industry insiders) if it could be pulled off. I think streaming is key, but the thing is the majority of the market appears to be perfectly happy with 320 or less so MQA's "sound quality" hook appears to be a weak motivating factor for consumers (besides audiophiles).

 

I personally waffle back and forth as to just how gullible consumers are. When we have patent attorney's writing screeds (apparently without realizing the irony) against the "stupid" consumers of music it gives me some hope. On the other hand, I know if it was to come to pass that when the average consumer walks in to the Verizon store and the majority of the phones has a little "MQA enabled" sticker on them, 99% would spend something less than a second even wondering what that meant.

[Miska]

Let's see when the claims materialize in reality. So far with decoded MQA output from a Meridian DAC I get increase in 0 - 96 kHz noise floor and reduction of signal bandwidth, compared to standard 192/18 FLAC that is smaller than MQA FLAC, created straight from the DXD original. (the 192/18 has also deblurring applied using apodizing down-conversion filter)

 

And yes I get the blue decoding light on when playing MQA content.

[tallica1]

First off, Bravo to ComputerAudiophile for having this forum. Very interesting discussion on both sides.

 

There has certainly been so much hype about MQA for well over a year. So the bar has already been set very high. MQA vs DRM are both extremely valid arguments and are literally still up in the air. It's odd to think that streaming over the internet can be a higher quality signal then DSD USB. I would like to really like hear some expert opinions about this?

 

And Moving forward won't all of these new concerns affect the MQA signal streaming quality by hi-end streamers including wifi gigabit ether-net, dirty power, power cables, weather, internet viruses etc?

[hifi_swlon]

….I would like to really like hear some expert opinions about this?

 

Me too, although I think (from the graphs) they're implying its 'as good as DSD' but at lower bandwidth, rather than better?

 

Hearing some music actually in MQA format would be quite nice too though!! When are we going to see it I wonder? Tidal's been 'about to launch it' for months. Until lots more people have a chance to listen, the debate sort of feels somewhat arbitrary.

 

If it sounds amazing - i.e. better than anything else currently available, or at least better than anything else currently available that's convenient to use on the go - I'm sure there will be lots of followers who could forgive a lot (except perhaps DRM). If it doesn't sound as good as CD in general, there's not likely to be much of a discussion going forward.

 

In either case at least we'd know what it sounded like beyond a few test files. Meridian would probably sell a few Explorer 2's if there was a decent Tidal catalogue - I'd probably get one just out of interest - but right now, what would I do with it?

[hifi_swlon]

What I do not understand is why the Music Industry is interested in "better sound quality" but is crushing the dynamic range of music? (Note: I am talking mainly the large labels for rock/pop. I have no idea on classical/jazz.). Will MQA make my ears bleed sooner? Is MQA just another master of music that needs to be purchased in addition to HW purchase? I have been down that route with SACD with compromised HW and SW.

 

If only MQA could contain 2 versions - one mastered for ear buds with the levels smashed into oblivion, and another for any half decent set of headphones or stereo system. Then we'd really be on to something - an 'ear bleeding toggle' - light or severe.

[mansr]

If only MQA could contain 2 versions - one mastered for ear buds with the levels smashed into oblivion, and another for any half decent set of headphones or stereo system. Then we'd really be on to something - an 'ear bleeding toggle' - light or severe.

 

That's what the "loudness" button of old did.

[scintilla]

... I get increase in 0 - 96 kHz noise floor and reduction of signal bandwidth, compared to standard 192/18 FLAC that is smaller than MQA FLAC, created straight from the DXD original.

 

Because they are using a low-level spread-spectrum encoder for the so-called "origami" to provide the decoder with instructions and data. You would expect to lose some bandwidth and have a higher noise-floor. DSD is functionally band-limited as you well-know because of the postential for idle-tones when you approach the point where the information isn't reliably retrievable. So, when Bob says that the system is compatible with DSD origins, that is the clue that they band-limit the signal first probably based on a spectral analysis, then apply a dynamic bit-depth and wrap the whole result up in a PCM container that looks and acts like any PCM system would recognize, but with a different noise-floor and probably a dynamically changing bandwidth and bitdepth compared to what you'd get from pure decimation of the DSD original. If the process provides an aural advantage you might even embrace it. But nobody should expect them to disclose exactly what they are doing. I'm inclined to prefer high-rate DSD as you do, for the same reasons, and very much love HQPlayer. But high-rate DSD isn't a practical transport and neither really is DXD. The bottleneck for a great deal of the population is Internet access bandwidth through multi-national telecoms. They charge for data throughput and frequently ramp heavy users. Those companies are the real target for this kind of transport container. If Bob can deliver a subjectiveky higher-quality sound through a smaller channel, then it will be very successful.

[mansr]

But nobody should expect them to disclose exactly what they are doing.

 

If they want me to use it, they bloody well should. Otherwise it's just another vendor lock-in scheme.

[Sal1950]

If they want me to use it, they bloody well should. Otherwise it's just another vendor lock-in scheme.

+1