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

[Ceanothus]

Folks might find these comments by Charles Hansen of Ayre Acoustics on the latest Stereophile MQA promotion post interesting:

 

Most of what Mr Hanson has to say is that he doesn't like expressing "noise per-root Hz".

 

But the thing about noise is that how much of it you measure depends on the bandwidth you measure over. As anyone who's looked at noise spectra FFTs knows - the more bins you use (narrower measurement bandwidth), the lower the noise floor comes. 3dB each time you double the number of bins. This isn't anything unconventional as a google for "per root hertz" will tell you.

 

So if a "16 bit noise floor" is coming out at -144dBfs then it's probably being analysed with a 64k point spectrum. Equally that'll be why the graphs include the "16 bit noise floor" as a reference since unless you know the analysis bandwidth is circa 1Hz the scale for noise is meaningless.

[tallica1]

Inside MQA

 

By John Atkinson

Inside MQA | Stereophile.com

 

Moving Forward, Thoughts on DSD 64/128 vs MQA ..Do the studios release all material on this format since MQA can't compete?

[tallica1]

typo DSD 128/25. MQA streaming can be the defacto standard if SONY jumps on.. Thoughts ?

[tallica1]

JUST IN: PS Audio's Paul McGowan Crushing blow to Meridian's MQA

WOW.

http://www.audiostream.com/content/ps-audios-paul-mcgowan-weighs-mqa#UE4m5pzorgw2tDGD.97

[tallica1]

Here's the URL:PS Audio's Paul McGowan Weighs In On MQA | AudioStream

[The Computer Audiophile]

JUST IN: PS Audio's Paul McGowan Crushing blow to Meridian's MQA

WOW.

http://www.audiostream.com/content/ps-audios-paul-mcgowan-weighs-mqa#UE4m5pzorgw2tDGD.97

Crushing? Are you sure?

[Sal1950]

Crushing? Are you sure?

 

LOL, Just a temporary ripple in the audiophile niche market. The engineers and marketing spinners will find a way to make things all work out if MQA becomes a defacto standard as intended. The weight of the audiophile media, (Stereophile TAS, etc) has already been thrown behind it and they'll never back down or admit they were wrong.

No effect at all on the intended general audience.

[crenca]

Crushing? Are you sure?

 

Well, "crushing" is too strong of course as any and all standards/formats have "crushing" limitations (as well as "extrodinary" and "game changing" advantages - just trying to stick with the audiophile press language here ) but I think we are seeing some real significant questioning of technical and market implications of MQA (finally):

 

Schiitting on MQA | DAR__KO

 

I like Shiitt's point(s) that:

 

"We consider MQA to be yet another “format distraction” that makes high-end audio more confusing and insular"

 

&

 

"We believe that supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization."

 

Linn Audio said similar things months ago. So, at least part of the industry is not entirely naive about formats, IP, etc. as some (i.e. the two big "audiophile" zines) would have us believe. Now, they are coming from it from a business perspective and Schitt admits that if it becomes the de facto standard, then they will have no choice - but we are all in the same boat in that we (the industry, consumers, etc.) now have a choice. Let's hope we are cognizant enough of the meaning of that choice to not give it up by chasing some promised pot of gold at the end of the SQ rainbow...

[tallica1]

Crushing? Are you sure?

 

I think this is the first well respected audio engineer whose opinion should matter. MQA has set such a high bar with help from the media. I think we all want the same transparency and less fluff.

[crenca]

I think this is the first well respected audio engineer whose opinion should matter. MQA has set such a high bar with help from the media. I think we all want the same transparency and less fluff.

 

"The media" (i.e. Stereophile and TAS) still can not get themselves to admit a single itty-bitty-tiny "con" to MQA at all. It should be embarrassing to grown men, let alone those who in some sense label themselves as "journalists". Actually, embarrassment by their initial enthusiasm might be why they can't get themselves to now retreat into a more sensible and realistic assessment. Unwittingly (I think - if not then it is a conspiracy of some sort), they were suckered into MQA's promotional machine and forgot to keep just a little bit of healthy skepticism. I know they are largely ignorant (using "ignorant" in it's technical sense of simply not being aware) of the larger questions of DRM, format and standards, and digital ecosystems but really, they could have at least tried. Now that it is 2016 and the music business has been "digital" for quite a while, it is time for them to bone up and the basics...

[The Computer Audiophile]

I agree that many people who've come out in strong support of MQA can't turn back now. The enthusiasm has been blind and blinding.

 

However, I had a chance last week to discuss MQA in much more detail with an engineer who I respect as one of the best in the industry. He was explaining the tech to me in much different / better detail than the marketing materials. After asking many questions and listening to the answers I think MQA is a really great technology that can improve our listening experiences greatly. The technical aspects of it aren't for the armchair engineers and those who haven't signed an NDA with MQA for all the real details. In other words, I am very suspect of opinions based on conjecture and traditional analysis methods, such as "here is a graph and it's got more noise than regular PCM." There is so much more to MQA than most people know. In fact one of my worries is that MQA is too complicated and complex and will not be adopted because many people don't understand it and will write it off as just another money grabbing technology, when really it isn't. Throughout history there have been many superior products that didn't succeed because of several factors unrelated to superiority. I hope this isn't one of them.

 

As of the last week or so, the popular thing is to come out against MQA. It gets a lot of press. However, like everything in life, it's nothing as it seems. Without real knowledge of the inter-workings of a company and its deliberations for or against MQA, it's really impossible to take a company at its word. There is so much going on behind the curtain it's crazy.

 

For a consumer point of view, I think we have to look at the end product and decide if we like it. In other words, does it increase my enjoyment of this hobby? If the answer is yes, then we should support it. Even if all the bad press about MQA making money from licensing fees was tripled and the armchair engineer comments were screamed louder, does it really make sense to not support something that you like, but others don't like for whatever reason? We've all spent far less money on other items in this hobby. MQA is a drop in the bucket.

[Tintinabulum]

"The media" (i.e. Stereophile and TAS) still can not get themselves to admit a single itty-bitty-tiny "con" to MQA at all. It should be embarrassing to grown men, let alone those who in some sense label themselves as "journalists". Actually, embarrassment by their initial enthusiasm might be why they can't get themselves to now retreat into a more sensible and realistic assessment. Unwittingly (I think - if not then it is a conspiracy of some sort), they were suckered into MQA's promotional machine and forgot to keep just a little bit of healthy skepticism. I know they are largely ignorant (using "ignorant" in it's technical sense of simply not being aware) of the larger questions of DRM, format and standards, and digital ecosystems but really, they could have at least tried. Now that it is 2016 and the music business has been "digital" for quite a while, it is time for them to bone up and the basics...

 

I get that you don't like it but do you have to devote so much of your energy to protecting the world from evil MQA, I'm sure we'll survive. It may even turn out to sound really really good, where would we be then?

[crenca]

.... The technical aspects of it aren't for the armchair engineers and those who haven't signed an NDA with MQA for all the real details. ...Throughout history there have been many superior products that didn't succeed because of several factors unrelated to superiority. I hope this isn't one of them....

 

...There is so much going on behind the curtain it's crazy.. .

 

For a consumer point of view, I think we have to look at the end product and decide if we like it. In other words, does it increase my enjoyment of this hobby? If the answer is yes, then we should support it.....

 

Now that music is part of the digital world, part of DRM, patents and IP, standards and formats, etc. this aspect is now part of what is "superior" and what is not. In the computer/digital world, nobody can afford to be naive about the impact of standards, formats, and IP and thus a product can not be judged based on it's "audio" or SQ (or any other narrow view) alone. The impact on the consumer (and other players in the market - just as Schiit and PS Audio are witnessing) of these other aspects is too significant.

 

I see your point however, that the "behind the curtain" wheeling and dealing is certainly part of the position that companies are going to take - your right, they are not simply doing "what is best for the consumer" either.

 

I will support it if it turns out to be a significant (even if it is incremental - in the end I would be surprised if it is a "great" improvement over well recorded high sample rate PCM/DSD) AND the challenge it poses to the fundamentals of our computer/digital music ecosystems are brought out into the open (in other words when the curtain is raised).

[Paul R]

I agree that many people who've come out in strong support of MQA can't turn back now. The enthusiasm has been blind and blinding.

 

However, I had a chance last week to discuss MQA in much more detail with an engineer who I respect as one of the best in the industry. He was explaining the tech to me in much different / better detail than the marketing materials. After asking many questions and listening to the answers I think MQA is a really great technology that can improve our listening experiences greatly. The technical aspects of it aren't for the armchair engineers and those who haven't signed an NDA with MQA for all the real details. In other words, I am very suspect of opinions based on conjecture and traditional analysis methods, such as "here is a graph and it's got more noise than regular PCM." There is so much more to MQA than most people know. In fact one of my worries is that MQA is too complicated and complex and will not be adopted because many people don't understand it and will write it off as just another money grabbing technology, when really it isn't. Throughout history there have been many superior products that didn't succeed because of several factors unrelated to superiority. I hope this isn't one of them.

 

As of the last week or so, the popular thing is to come out against MQA. It gets a lot of press. However, like everything in life, it's nothing as it seems. Without real knowledge of the inter-workings of a company and its deliberations for or against MQA, it's really impossible to take a company at its word. There is so much going on behind the curtain it's crazy.

 

For a consumer point of view, I think we have to look at the end product and decide if we like it. In other words, does it increase my enjoyment of this hobby? If the answer is yes, then we should support it. Even if all the bad press about MQA making money from licensing fees was tripled and the armchair engineer comments were screamed louder, does it really make sense to not support something that you like, but others don't like for whatever reason? We've all spent far less money on other items in this hobby. MQA is a drop in the bucket.

 

I tend to be more in agreement with you than not, but I still have a pretty deep abiding distrust of the purpose of MQA. I mean, obviously, it is meant to make someone a lot of money, but nobody seems to be admitting that. The license requirements, the assumptions made that make life difficult for DACs with FPGAs, the worry about being locked into an MQA eco-system (which might die off like DIVX), and so on.

 

Balance that against the fact that the MQA files certainly do seem to sound better, at least the very limited few I have gotten to listen to do. (Mostly, there are one or two exceptions.)

 

-Paul

[Axiom05]

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I don't think that the audio press "gets" why people would not be ready to jump onto yet another format that promises to deliver better sound. Personally, I do not want to risk wasting my money on another potentially orphaned format. Is SQ so bad right now? Can't the ADC's be made with better filters so that "debluring" is not needed? As has been mentioned before, a much greater improvement in SQ would be obtained by using improved engineering/mastering techniques. MQA will not make a poorly engineered recording sound good so what's the point of authenticating the quality?

[master]

MQA will not make a poorly engineered recording sound good so what's the point of authenticating the quality?

 

MQA authentication has nothing to do with file or audio quality. They will MQA authenticate anything that the studio stands behind. The authentication is only a way to ensure the end user is actually listening to "genuine" music and not pirated music. At least that's my reading/understanding of the MQA authentication process or rather the tied in DRM.

 

MQA have said as much...

 

We make no judgement about sound quality or about any arbitrary definitions of ‘resolution’ or ‘quality’. So an MQA file direct from a label which is, e.g. 44.1 kHz 16 bit mono transfer from a cylinder is fine so long as it is vouched for, as is music in any sample rate up to 768 kHz PCM or DSD256.

 

MQA authentication is not a proxy for a High-Res definition.

 

That alone (the fact they will authenticate anything the studios vouch for) should put to rest all claims of improved SQ. The rest is pure filters nevermind I'm not even an armchair engineer (pun intended and no offense meant to anyone) to debate all of that.

[tallica1]

John Darko Weighs in on MQA.

An inconvenient truth: MQA sounds better! | DAR__KO

 

Interesting positive DETAILED actually listening MQA article

John is one of the most respected in the business with his "tell it like it is" and most fun to read.

[crenca]

John Darko Weighs in on MQA.

An inconvenient truth: MQA sounds better! | DAR__KO

 

Interesting positive DETAILED actually listening MQA article

John is one of the most respected in the business with his "tell it like it is" and most fun to read.

 

It is an excellent review and besides our own Chris' the only one I really trust so far. It appears to be a real A/B comparison, even if not perfect.

 

Sure enough, MQA is a REAL SQ improvement. As I asked over there, is it worth the cost? Some in the industry (Schiit, PS Audio, Linn Audio, etc.) appear to be waking up to the fact the MQA is a non-hostile take over of the entire recording and playback chain. No more innovation in DAC design/sound - you turn it all over to one company and their patent protected process. You can't even seriously investigate their method without a NDA, and one wonders even then.

 

I have a question for everyone: Why would we simply not be patient and wait for this wonderful "“time domain correction” to come out in a way that does not obligate us to the downside of an IP and software patents and the takeover of our digital ecosystems? Audio is simply physics and Bob is not the only inventor around - someone will sooner or later (it is almost always sooner) will be doing the same thing in their widget/software...

[firedog]

So far 2 ohter writers whose ears I respect have tested MQA and think it sounds better (Darko and Michael Lavorgna) than non-MQA versions of the files. That means something to me.

 

Obviously the jury is still out.

 

The advantage MQA files have other "special/audiophile" formats is that MQA files are playable in standard equipment - unlike DSD, etc, etc. So "regular" people can buy and play MQA files without even being aware of it.

 

If Tidal really starts streaming everything (or lots of material) in MQA, I think it has a future. If it really improves the sound of Tidal, that would be a good enough reason for me to want an MQA capable DAC.

 

I'm planning on buying a truly high end DAC in the coming year. Will there be a serious amount of music or streaming files with MQA by then? And will there be a fair amount of MQA DACs available? I wouldn't get an expensive DAC "just" because it has MQA. So if I buy one without, will I be sorry?

 

Paul McGowan of PS Audiio recently rejected MQA b/c adding it isn't compatible with the FPGA (software updateable) based guts of his DS DACs. He can't hold his architecture/concept hostage to MQA approval each time he wants to make a new firmware upgrade to his DACs. I certainly understand that, and it is a weakness of the MQA concept. Will MQA be able to come out with some sort of software solution that will work for these DACs?

[The Computer Audiophile]

It is an excellent review and besides our own Chris' the only one I really trust so far. It appears to be a real A/B comparison, even if not perfect.

 

Sure enough, MQA is a REAL SQ improvement. As I asked over there, is it worth the cost? Some in the industry (Schiit, PS Audio, Linn Audio, etc.) appear to be waking up to the fact the MQA is a non-hostile take over of the entire recording and playback chain. No more innovation in DAC design/sound - you turn it all over to one company and their patent protected process. You can't even seriously investigate their method without a NDA, and one wonders even then.

 

I have a question for everyone: Why would we simply not be patient and wait for this wonderful "“time domain correction” to come out in a way that does not obligate us to the downside of an IP and software patents and the takeover of our digital ecosystems? Audio is simply physics and Bob is not the only inventor around - someone will sooner or later (it is almost always sooner) will be doing the same thing in their widget/software...

 

Very good question. It's also a question that could be asked about any industry / technology. I think the question can be answered with another question - What's in it for the developer of the technology?

 

It's clearly not something that was thought up overnight. It takes time and money and influence for something like MQA to get to market and succeed. For this time and money, there has to be something in it for the developer. Without IP, the chances of an MQA competitor are slim to none. I don't think MQA is a new idea, but there are reasons the idea hasn't been brought to market by other companies. Time, money, etc... If any one of us had the wherewithal to bring MQA to market, would we do it for free? Probably not.

 

Then there is the idea that MQA is removing innovation from DAC design and sound. I believe this is far from the truth. One could say the same thing about ESS for companies that simply plop the chips in products and are off to the races. There is much more to it. I'm sure MQA could be implemented in a much less "intrusive" way, but that may not get the best results. Such would be the case with a software decoder.

 

I don't want my comments to seem like a blind endorsement of MQA (similar to other writers), as I am still cautious about the whole thing. However, the more people I know who have actually signed the NDA and are actually researching the technology and who actually understand what's going on, the more I like MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

So far 2 ohter writers whose ears I respect have tested MQA and think it sounds better (Darko and Michael Lavorgna) than non-MQA versions of the files. That means something to me.

 

Obviously the jury is still out.

 

The advantage MQA files have other "special/audiophile" formats is that MQA files are playable in standard equipment - unlike DSD, etc, etc. So "regular" people can buy and play MQA files without even being aware of it.

 

If Tidal really starts streaming everything (or lots of material) in MQA, I think it has a future. If it really improves the sound of Tidal, that would be a good enough reason for me to want an MQA capable DAC.

 

I'm planning on buying a truly high end DAC in the coming year. Will there be a serious amount of music or streaming files with MQA by then? And will there be a fair amount of MQA DACs available? I wouldn't get an expensive DAC "just" because it has MQA. So if I buy one without, will I be sorry?

 

Paul McGowan of PS Audiio recently rejected MQA b/c adding it isn't compatible with the FPGA (software updateable) based guts of his DS DACs. He can't hold his architecture/concept hostage to MQA approval each time he wants to make a new firmware upgrade to his DACs. I certainly understand that, and it is a weakness of the MQA concept. Will MQA be able to come out with some sort of software solution that will work for these DACs?

I have the same files as John Darko and plan to do some A/B testing as well. Should be fun and hopefully provide some additional data points.

 

With respect to purchasing a DAC, some will be upgradeable via firmware, others will be upgradable via subtle hardware changes, while others will be SOL. This is a big thing on many peoples' minds right now and is holding up a lot of purchases, and rightly so. Who wants to spend the money on something they may regret?

 

I suggest talking to people and manufacturers about their plans for MQA. See if you can get deeper info other than, "we are looking at it." I know that's difficult though. Maybe we need a thread discussing MQA DACs and which DACs will be firmware/software upgradable or require new hardware or will be door stops.

[mansr]

Very good question. It's also a question that could be asked about any industry / technology. I think the question can be answered with another question - What's in it for the developer of the technology?

 

It's clearly not something that was thought up overnight. It takes time and money and influence for something like MQA to get to market and succeed. For this time and money, there has to be something in it for the developer. Without IP, the chances of an MQA competitor are slim to none. I don't think MQA is a new idea, but there are reasons the idea hasn't been brought to market by other companies. Time, money, etc... If any one of us had the wherewithal to bring MQA to market, would we do it for free? Probably not.

 

There's a wide range of options between "for free" and the super-secret model MQA has chosen. Consider, for instance, the MPEG standards (MP3, AAC, and their video counterparts). These also cost someone a lot of time and money to develop, yet they chose to make the technologies part of the standards anyone can implement, relying exclusively on patent royalties for profit. Dolby AC-3 and DTS have openly published specifications as part of the ATSC A/52B and ETSI DVB standards. Both companies wanted a slice of the TV pie, and the price for that was opening up a little. Even Apple has made ALAC open source in addition to their many contributions to the ISO standards.

 

If MQA is really as good as they say, they should have nothing to fear from opening the specification and releasing a reference software encoder and decoder. Then we could all try it out and see just how much of the hype it lives up to.

 

From what I've seen so far, I wouldn't be surprised if the MQA filters applied a little EQ known to be perceived by many as "better" in addition to whatever actual "de-blurring" it performs. Especially the talk from some about improved bass has me suspicious. Any "temporal blur" present in a 192 kHz recording really doesn't have any impact on frequencies normally considered as bass. Either these reviewers are imagining things, or MQA is being less than honest with the evaluation samples they provide, neither of which is unlikely.

[tallica1]

I have the same files as John Darko and plan to do some A/B testing as well. Should be fun and hopefully provide some additional data points.

 

With respect to purchasing a DAC, some will be upgradeable via firmware, others will be upgradable via subtle hardware changes, while others will be SOL. This is a big thing on many peoples' minds right now and is holding up a lot of purchases, and rightly so. Who wants to spend the money on something they may regret?

 

I suggest talking to people and manufacturers about their plans for MQA. See if you can get deeper info other than, "we are looking at it." I know that's difficult though. Maybe we need a thread discussing MQA DACs and which DACs will be firmware/software upgradable or require new hardware or will be door stops.

 

Chris: Excellent insight. And very much appreciated. Off topic for a moment. What is your expert opinion on DSD 64/128/256. Will Sony and the other major labels finally start to release a plethora of new material DSD 64/128 ? Where are we will this format.

 

Tx Steven

[crenca]

Very good question. It's also a question that could be asked about any industry / technology. I think the question can be answered with another question - What's in it for the developer of the technology?

 

It's clearly not something that was thought up overnight. It takes time and money and influence for something like MQA to get to market and succeed. For this time and money, there has to be something in it for the developer. Without IP, the chances of an MQA competitor are slim to none. I don't think MQA is a new idea, but there are reasons the idea hasn't been brought to market by other companies. Time, money, etc... If any one of us had the wherewithal to bring MQA to market, would we do it for free? Probably not.

 

Then there is the idea that MQA is removing innovation from DAC design and sound. I believe this is far from the truth. One could say the same thing about ESS for companies that simply plop the chips in products and are off to the races. There is much more to it. I'm sure MQA could be implemented in a much less "intrusive" way, but that may not get the best results. Such would be the case with a software decoder.

 

I don't want my comments to seem like a blind endorsement of MQA (similar to other writers), as I am still cautious about the whole thing. However, the more people I know who have actually signed the NDA and are actually researching the technology and who actually understand what's going on, the more I like MQA.

 

Chris,

 

I think (& you probably saw this coming ) the IP-time/money-innovation link is WAY, WAY overplayed. It can be summed up by this sentence:

 

"Without IP, the chances of an MQA competitor are slim to none."

 

Perhaps it is just opinion, but when I look at the history of technological innovation I come to the exact opposite conclusion. I expect a "time domain correction" competitor in the next few months, perhaps even weeks!

 

You are correct, it takes IP, time, money, and lots of lawyers to bring the end-to-end monolith that is MQA to market. Is this what we really need however? Can a similar result be had without the (very expensive) end-to-end takeover?

 

Also, what if an incremental approach is allowed to unfold over the next few years - one that gets us to say, 80% of MQA in a step by step process that nonetheless preserves the freedom of our digital music ecosystems that we now enjoy (even if most don't really "get" the importance of that freedom)? Even if we grant that "best" is the actual goal and MQA (or something like it) is the only way to achieve it, perhaps we decide that "best" is not the best and the innovation/freedom of the market is actually "best", if not better...

[The Computer Audiophile]

There's a wide range of options between "for free" and the super-secret model MQA has chosen. Consider, for instance, the MPEG standards (MP3, AAC, and their video counterparts). These also cost someone a lot of time and money to develop, yet they chose to make the technologies part of the standards anyone can implement, relying exclusively on patent royalties for profit. Dolby AC-3 and DTS have openly published specifications as part of the ATSC A/52B and ETSI DVB standards. Both companies wanted a slice of the TV pie, and the price for that was opening up a little. Even Apple has made ALAC open source in addition to their many contributions to the ISO standards.

 

If MQA is really as good as they say, they should have nothing to fear from opening the specification and releasing a reference software encoder and decoder. Then we could all try it out and see just how much of the hype it lives up to.

 

From what I've seen so far, I wouldn't be surprised if the MQA filters applied a little EQ known to be perceived by many as "better" in addition to whatever actual "de-blurring" it performs. Especially the talk from some about improved bass has me suspicious. Any "temporal blur" present in a 192 kHz recording really doesn't have any impact on frequencies normally considered as bass. Either these reviewers are imagining things, or MQA is being less than honest with the evaluation samples they provide, neither of which is unlikely.

Hi mansr - I certainly hear what you're saying.

 

I don't think opening up a software encoder / decoder would be smart at this time for MQA. If software en/decode provides a lesser experience or less good product than full hardware implementation, it would be detrimental to the MQA effort.

 

I would be shocked if MQA filters did any EQ. High end manufacturer wouldn't stand for it. Most who want to truly built a neutral product would run from any EQ.

 

The better bass people could be hearing could have more / all to do with other factors than the deblurring.