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

[The Computer Audiophile]

You guys are talking like they're out to get you :~)

 

It's a matter of pros and cons. If the pros outweigh the cons, then great MQA is for you. If not, just keep listening to what you have.

[mansr]

You guys are talking like they're out to get you :~)

 

I'm not saying they are. It's enough that they might.

[Account Closed]

Like the song said "paranoia strikes deep ... starts when you're always afraid". Way too much of it here. The two points that keep coming up here that are worth remembering:

 

- This is all totally irrelevant unless there is a substantial catalog of every kind of music for every kind of listener worldwide.

 

- This is all about streaming. There will probably never be a physical media release of MQA produced music. The millions (billions ?) of players out there would not be able to decode it and they cannot be modified easily if at all. New player production is drying up as well.

 

Lastly, someone has to pay for all this and who that would be is not at all clear.

 

As the song said "the answer my friend is blowing in the wind ......."

[Sal1950]

You guys are talking like they're out to get you :~)

 

It's a matter of pros and cons. If the pros outweigh the cons, then great MQA is for you. If not, just keep listening to what you have.

 

I just hope at some point choice doesn't disappear. Looks like for things like Tidal streaming that at some point will be the case. The non-MQA streams will be gone. If it spills over to download sights like HDTracks, etc; do you think they will offer HDA files in both formats forever? If the general public sucks it up but the niche audiophile market finds it wanting, who do you think will win?

[Sal1950]

Like the song said "paranoia strikes deep ... starts when you're always afraid". Way too much of it here. The two points that keep coming up here that are worth remembering:

 

Just cause I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is following me. LOL

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just cause I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is following me. LOL

Love it :~)

[Kevin M.]

I just hope at some point choice doesn't disappear. Looks like for things like Tidal streaming that at some point will be the case. The non-MQA streams will be gone. If it spills over to download sights like HDTracks, etc; do you think they will offer HDA files in both formats forever? If the general public sucks it up but the niche audiophile market finds it wanting, who do you think will win?

I see that happening. MQA seems to be blocking a decoded MQA stream from being output digitally. It seems like HDMI in that it will allow a lower quality sound out via digital but the highest quality is only allowed via an analog out,through whatever onboard dacs. That's why I don't think the studios will ever allow a software decoder to put out the best quality via a digital out.

[ogs]

I see that happening. MQA seems to be blocking a decoded MQA stream from being output digitally. It seems like HDMI in that it will allow a lower quality sound out via digital but the highest quality is only allowed via an analog out,through whatever onboard dacs. That's why I don't think the studios will ever allow a software decoder to put out the best quality via a digital out.

 

That is a really scaring possibility that has not been mentioned before. In A44 Bob Stuart discussed this. A digital output streamer would need to know the "profile" of a DAC to send the correct stream to it. Let us hope this is what MQA will do rather than forcing us to select DA converters with decoding built in. Being a Devialet user I do not see MQA decoding coming to my device any time soon, if ever.

[firedog]

I just hope at some point choice doesn't disappear. Looks like for things like Tidal streaming that at some point will be the case. The non-MQA streams will be gone. If it spills over to download sights like HDTracks, etc; do you think they will offer HDA files in both formats forever? If the general public sucks it up but the niche audiophile market finds it wanting, who do you think will win?

 

I think if it succeeds in the streaming realm, we will definitely see digital downloads with MQA built in. And then the non-MQA tracks will start to disappear or won't exist at all. My only real problem with that will be if the sound of the tracks on a non-MQA setup will be degraded compared to a track without MQA at all. That remains to be seen.

[mansr]

I think if it succeeds in the streaming realm, we will definitely see digital downloads with MQA built in. And then the non-MQA tracks will start to disappear or won't exist at all.

 

2L already offer MQA downloads from their web store. At least for now they still have non-MQA versions as well though.

 

My only real problem with that will be if the sound of the tracks on a non-MQA setup will be degraded compared to a track without MQA at all. That remains to be seen.

 

Did you not see Miska's tests? Archimagos's? Mine? How many does it take to convince you people? Undecoded MQA is indisputably inferior to CD quality, let alone non-MQA hi-res.

[firedog]

2L already offer MQA downloads from their web store. At least for now they still have non-MQA versions as well though

 

 

I have serious doubts 2L will be representative of commerical labels. With commercial releases we've already seen examples like: 2010 hi-res remaster - no volume compression. 2014 hi-res remaster, high VC added and previous remaster disappears from catalogs.

 

Did you not see Miska's tests? Archimagos's? Mine? How many does it take to convince you people? Undecoded MQA is indisputably inferior to CD quality, let alone non-MQA hi-res.

 

And I also saw the categorical rejection of them and of the very nature of the tests. So it is actually disputed,in spite of your bold face font.

 

Chris asked Miska to specifically (not generally) respond to Bob Stuart earlier in the thread, and he hasn't done so. So I'm waiting to see what it sounds like, not what someone tells me must be true from their test.

[Paul R]

Like the song said "paranoia strikes deep ... starts when you're always afraid". Way too much of it here. The two points that keep coming up here that are worth remembering:

 

- This is all totally irrelevant unless there is a substantial catalog of every kind of music for every kind of listener worldwide.

 

- This is all about streaming. There will probably never be a physical media release of MQA produced music. The millions (billions ?) of players out there would not be able to decode it and they cannot be modified easily if at all. New player production is drying up as well.

 

Lastly, someone has to pay for all this and who that would be is not at all clear.

 

As the song said "the answer my friend is blowing in the wind ......."

 

Mixing songs there, but I wonder if you should have included more lyrics? Perhaps it should be the audiophile anthem IRT this subject? (Mostly just kidding... )

 

There's something happening here

What it is ain't exactly clear

There's a man with a gun over there

Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong

Young people speaking their minds

Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat

A thousand people in the street

Singing songs and carrying signs

Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's s time we stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep

Into your life it will creep

It starts when you're always afraid

Step outta line, the man comes,

and takes you away...

[mansr]

And I also saw the categorical rejection of them and of the very nature of the tests. So it is actually disputed,in spite of your bold face font.

 

Chris asked Miska to specifically (not generally) respond to Bob Stuart earlier in the thread, and he hasn't done so. So I'm waiting to see what it sounds like, not what someone tells me must be true from their test.

 

In other words, only positive evaluations count in your book.

[firedog]

In other words, only positive evaluations count in your book.

 

Only when you put words in my mouth.

 

I've read different evaluations/positions that don't agree. That's why it actually is "disputed".

 

I haven't been convinced by your arguments - or Bob Stuart's.

 

How many times do we see 2 supposedly "qualified" technical people argue over audio issues. Hell, "experts" can't even agree whether DSD or PCM is inherently better quality - even in a technical sense - and both sides bring technical "proof" to bolster their argument. And yes, I've read all the arguments on both sides, so please don't repeat them to me.

 

As a result, in the end, I listen to the arguments, and then listen myself and decide what sounds better to me.

 

Try to get over yourself, and don't take it personally.

[scintilla]

I'd add to your comments firedog with this: how do you know what is indisputably inferior? Over and over, linear-minded, absolutist view are proven to be the lesser of viewpoints in scientific and engineering fields. That textbook on signal and systems and the other on communications systems usually consider ideal realizations. Furthermore, we are still on the cusp of understanding perceptual parameters for coding theory. Idealized PCM is rarely attainable, but if you consider a straight linear PCM encoding at 44.1/16 as cd quality, you are looking at two parameters: S/N and dynamic range (and an upper limit of 22khz). So, if MQA modulates those based on a newer model of the human auditory system and other paramteters at the expense of a higher noise floor, or reduced dynamic range with the normal or a slightly-reduced bandwidth, it isn't a certainty that those changes render a recording "indisputably inferior." As the famous 19th century semanticist Alfred Korzybski opined: "The map is not the territory." It very well could be the case that an improved pulse response is significantly more important for sound quality than an excessively low noise-floor. In fact, it is probable. So, sticking to those rigid and world-weary tropes simply makes you appear to be a rigid absolutist that lacks imagination. A perfectly good way to be a very average engineer.

[Paul R]

I'd add to your comments firedog with this: how do you know what is indisputably inferior? Over and over, linear-minded, absolutist view are proven to be the lesser of viewpoints in scientific and engineering fields. That textbook on signal and systems and the other on communications systems usually consider ideal realizations. Furthermore, we are still on the cusp of understanding perceptual parameters for coding theory. Idealized PCM is rarely attainable, but if you consider a straight linear PCM encoding at 44.1/16 as cd quality, you are looking at two parameters: S/N and dynamic range (and an upper limit of 22khz). So, if MQA modulates those based on a newer model of the human auditory system and other paramteters at the expense of a higher noise floor, or reduced dynamic range with the normal or a slightly-reduced bandwidth, it isn't a certainty that those changes render a recording "indisputably inferior." As the famous 19th century semanticist Alfred Korzybski opined: "The map is not the territory." It very well could be the case that an improved pulse response is significantly more important for sound quality than an excessively low noise-floor. In fact, it is probable. So, sticking to those rigid and world-weary tropes simply makes you appear to be a rigid absolutist that lacks imagination. A perfectly good way to be a very average engineer.

 

And then of course, you get the engineer who dreams big and accomplishes nothing. One does run into both types.

 

But in your comment, I think I heard you say you believe that MQA is "modulating parameters" based upon a "newer model of the human auditory system." I do not think I have heard that said of MQA at this time.

 

Do you have a reference? I am not disputing by the way, just want to reread the part I either did not see, did not comprehend, or otherwise missed.

 

-Paul

[scintilla]

Point noted, but very few groundbreaking advances are made by thinking conventionally about solving problems. Particularly when answering the wrong question, or failing to ask the right question. All of my comments are speculative. I base them on AES papers on HRTFs and articles on phase such as the Wood effect. I may be wrong about how they are implementing, but I have a fairly strong suspicion that their goal is to optimize some signal parameters that are not conventionally considered. Over the years, the data that John Atkinson collected on time and phase responses for loudspeakers, and the perceptual correlations to those measurements as well as the studies from Harmon appear to me to show a demonstrable subjective preference for certain phase and time behaviour. So I am inferring that Bob's work is an effort to provide perceptual improvements within an existing set of boundary conditions provided by a 24/48 PCM container. There are only so many ways to do that, but it is certain that they have to use a some form of a model, and I think it is a perceptually-based one. While it would be nice to know the nuts-and-bolts, I just don't think we are going to get that. In my personal experience, I have found time-coherent loudspeakers to be subjectively more natural and enjoyable, either implemented by design or with room correction. The implications for correcting for pulse-response anomalies for signals follows pretty easily.

[james45974]

Point noted, but very few groundbreaking advances are made by thinking conventionally about solving problems. Particularly when answering the wrong question, or failing to ask the right question. All of my comments are speculative.

 

My emphasis on the quote, and to try and get the thread back on topic , isn't MQA solving the wrong problem, or asking the wrong questions? Seems to me they are tackling a somewhat trivial matter when the elephant in the room is compression and lack of dynamic range. Garbage in, garbage out, garbage into MQA equals garbage out of MQA!

[monteverdi]

My emphasis on the quote, and to try and get the thread back on topic , isn't MQA solving the wrong problem, or asking the wrong questions? Seems to me they are tackling a somewhat trivial matter when the elephant in the room is compression and lack of dynamic range. Garbage in, garbage out, garbage into MQA equals garbage out of MQA!

 

I think there are 2 issues with mass audio: dynamic and temporal.

MQAed music could be also verified to be dynamically correct (i.e. uncompressed) but is have not seen much discussion about that point from them. Mostly they focussed on the fact that the dynamic range of music is frequency dependent.

MQA is focussing on the temporal aspects (and I believe that is important) but mainly on the effects of AD and DA conversions. But the hole recording chain has a lot of influence on temporal accuracy especially multi mic recording, mixing etc.. That is under the complete control of the labels (sometimes with a little influence of the artists) but if MQA would bring more attention to the conversion aspects it could lead to better recording technique in general.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I would never want to tell an artist his/her recording is dynamically correct or incorrect. Dynamic range compression is an artistic decision that those who care about playback have to accept.

[Sal1950]

I would never want to tell an artist his/her recording is dynamically correct or incorrect. Dynamic range compression is an artistic decision that those who care about playback have to accept.

Do you really believe today's dynamically constrained releases are a artistic decision more so than a labels marketing decision and their pressured influence over the artists and mastering engineers? I'm not comfortable blaming the artist for the results.

In 1989 Bonnie Raitts decision was a DR13 for Nick Of Time, in 2016 Dig In Deep is a DR7, did she change her mind?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Do you really believe today's dynamically constrained releases are a artistic decision more so than a labels marketing decision and their pressured influence over the artists and mastering engineers? I'm not comfortable blaming the artist for the results.

In 1989 Bonnie Raitts decision was a DR13 for Nick Of Time, in 2016 Dig In Deep is a DR7, did she change her mind?

I could have been more detailed. By artistic decision I mean everyone involved with the product. On some albums it's a combination of people while on others it's only the artist etc... No matter who it is, it's still an artistic decision on how the record should sound and I'd never want someone telling me what's best for me (if I was making a record).

[Axiom05]

I wonder how many artists don't even hear the final product until it is released? "Artistic decision" sounds more like an excuse for labels to hide behind. We have no way of knowing what the artist really intended. Some artists are closely involved in the recording process while others are probably less so. I will try to avoid records that I feel have been poorly made.

[crenca]

I wonder how many artists don't even hear the final product until it is released? "Artistic decision" sounds more like an excuse for labels to hide behind. We have no way of knowing what the artist really intended. Some artists are closely involved in the recording process while others are probably less so. I will try to avoid records that I feel have been poorly made.

 

Based on what I have read here and elsewhere, the majority (even "vast" majority) of artists appear to be rather removed from the final quality/fidelity of their recordings. Indeed, many (most?) appear to be indifferent and not either capable or even interested in anything called "fidelity". This seems particularly true in the "popular" genre's of pop, rock, country, etc. Jazz and classical album's appear to be on a whole a bit better off, but is that due to interests by the artists or rather the higher demands/expectations of the consumer of these genre's? I suspect it is more the latter. All that seems to apply equally to "producers" and labels also, which is one of the reasons I think the SQ aspect of MQA is quite besides the point (i.e. they are not looking at it or anything else like it for the SQ aspects). I should note that audiophile labels (such as 2L, etc.) are simply exceptions that prove the rule...

[firedog]

Based on what I have read here and elsewhere, the majority (even "vast" majority) of artists appear to be rather removed from the final quality/fidelity of their recordings. Indeed, many (most?) appear to be indifferent and not either capable or even interested in anything called "fidelity". This seems particularly true in the "popular" genre's of pop, rock, country, etc. Jazz and classical album's appear to be on a whole a bit better off, but is that due to interests by the artists or rather the higher demands/expectations of the consumer of these genre's? I suspect it is more the latter. All that seems to apply equally to "producers" and labels also, which is one of the reasons I think the SQ aspect of MQA is quite besides the point (i.e. they are not looking at it or anything else like it for the SQ aspects). I should note that audiophile labels (such as 2L, etc.) are simply exceptions that prove the rule...

 

+1 and I think that it is worse: I think management/labels have legal control and sometimes ignore what the artist wants anyway. On remasters/reissues this is especially true - the artist can be at a different label and have no control - or even influence - at all over what the label does with his work. Van Morrison reportedly didn't even want some of the recent remasters of his work done. (Although I think the ones I've heard sound fine).