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

[crenca]

 

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.

 

The thing is, we will NEVER know the actual answer to this because of IP/NDA. There simply can not be any honest evaluation of what MQA is actually doing, and because it is an end-to-end takeover of the entire recording/playback chain, there might even be to many moving pieces for a good evaluation even if it was opened up...

[The Computer Audiophile]

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...

Of course I saw this coming, and it's a great part of the CA Community. Great exchanges.

 

I don't think it's overblown. If it was, MQA should be a competitor to something that's already available. so far nobody has had what it takes to bring this to market. The brains and there, but I bet the time and money isn't. Plus, the return on investment must not be there for other companies or by using different approaches.

 

I obviously don't know for sure, just guessing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

The thing is, we will NEVER know the actual answer to this because of IP/NDA. There simply can not be any honest evaluation of what MQA is actually doing, and because it is an end-to-end takeover of the entire recording/playback chain, there might even be to many moving pieces for a good evaluation even if it was opened up...

Sure we will. Humans can't keep secrets. Some company would certainly scream from the mountain tops if this has EQ. Plus, they would likely want to disable the EQ.

 

Or, they would release the information on a forum anonymously.

[crenca]

Sure we will. Humans can't keep secrets. Some company would certainly scream from the mountain tops if this has EQ. Plus, they would likely want to disable the EQ.

 

Or, they would release the information on a forum anonymously.

 

Well yes, but it won't be "Some company" - to get as far as the EQ they would have had to already $bought$ into the concept, with real dollars and (more importantly) in a self preservation or "this thing is going to make me money" tactical sense. They would already be on-board with MQA from several important directions.

 

No, it will be some disgruntled employee (or an idealist) within said company. However, will it matter? We will never be able to actually confirm or deny it - it will only trigger huge threads on forums such as this while Bob and company smile and say "no no, it is all {fill in the blank techno mumbo jumbo that can neither be confirmed or denied because of IP}". In the end, for most it won't matter because it will (whatever the truth) sound "better", and is not SQ the end all and be all of MQA in any case?

[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.

 

IMO The leading indicator with MQA on the hardware side will be AURALic based upon the information and conversations I can gather. And especially at CES when things were abruptly halted.

 

First, with the new top of the line Aries forthcoming (likely to include MQA) and even more interesting when AURALic "hopefully and very "likely" releases the AURALic Vega 2 later in the year with MQA or not.

 

So how Xuanquian Wang actually engineers this should be interesting to see. Especially as AURALic continues as the market leader with steaming.

[master]

I still don't see the numbers for MQA. Lots of interesting discussions and possibilities, but the math simply does not add up... unless I'm missing something.

 

We all agree on nobody re-buying all of their music. We are also pretty much certain new music/album sales are going to be a fraction even with MQA to really make a difference in anybody's kitty.

 

That leaves streaming and to be specific only Tidal. That's 1 million subs paying $20 a month. That's like peanuts for the studios. But even then nobody likes to leave money on the table and taking into account how much of a cut the studios take from the likes of Spotify, there would be very little left for Tidal, the artists, and MQA (and whoever else gets a cut). I don't really see any significant numbers or profits showing up anytime soon. Unless of course they are banking on the music (even if its only streaming) being there first and then folks upgrading their DACs and DAC manufacturer's paying licensing fee... and that's how MQA will really get to the big payday. Even those are not going to be really significant numbers... audiophilia is a niche, and then MQA and DACs in general, and then MQA specific DACs are so much of a sub-niche.

[Sal1950]

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...

+1 and yes I agree. As a long time Linux user and open source supporter I have to oppose MQA on it's "end-to-end takeover" closed source repercussions alone. Are we to give away our freedom for a arguably extremely subtle SQ improvement (if it truly exists and is not the result of some buried EQ or marketing other trick).

Without a doubt some other form of improved lossless compression can only be just around the corner that will equal MQA's bucket size reduction without the accompanying negatives.

[firedog]

I still don't see the numbers for MQA. Lots of interesting discussions and possibilities, but the math simply does not add up... unless I'm missing something.

 

We all agree on nobody re-buying all of their music. We are also pretty much certain new music/album sales are going to be a fraction even with MQA to really make a difference in anybody's kitty.

 

That leaves streaming and to be specific only Tidal. That's 1 million subs paying $20 a month. That's like peanuts for the studios. But even then nobody likes to leave money on the table and taking into account how much of a cut the studios take from the likes of Spotify, there would be very little left for Tidal, the artists, and MQA (and whoever else gets a cut). I don't really see any significant numbers or profits showing up anytime soon. Unless of course they are banking on the music (even if its only streaming) being there first and then folks upgrading their DACs and DAC manufacturer's paying licensing fee... and that's how MQA will really get to the big payday. Even those are not going to be really significant numbers... audiophilia is a niche, and then MQA and DACs in general, and then MQA specific DACs are so much of a sub-niche.

 

I think you are being a bit too pessimistic. The Tidal hi-fi streaming subscriptions are apparently at about 1.5 million already. That's pretty good growth for the time it's been around. How many high-end audio manufacturers have sold 1.5 million units of anything?

I assume Tidal and streaming in general will continue to grow. If Tidal succeeds, they won't remain alone as the only company streaming better than mp3 quality.

 

From what I've seen, Tidal stands to save quite a bit of money by streaming smaller MQA files versus what they are streaming today in the hi-fi stream. I'd guess that's the real appeal for them.

[crenca]

 

From what I've seen, Tidal stands to save quite a bit of money by streaming smaller MQA files versus what they are streaming today in the hi-fi stream. I'd guess that's the real appeal for them.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought MQA files (of any original sample rate - including 16/44) were larger than the same file in 16/44 and FLAC compressed (what Tidal is streaming today as their "Hi-Fi" stream)?? Also, remind me again but MQA does not compress in FLAC format very well. In other words, a MQA Tidal stream will be larger than their existing/current "Hi-Fi" stream...right, wrong, or is it "who knows"?

[mansr]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought MQA files (of any original sample rate - including 16/44) were larger than the same file in 16/44 and FLAC compressed (what Tidal is streaming today as their "Hi-Fi" stream)?? Also, remind me again but MQA does not compress in FLAC format very well. In other words, a MQA Tidal stream will be larger than their existing/current "Hi-Fi" stream...right, wrong, or is it "who knows"?

 

This is what every explanation suggests, and the 2L samples support it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is what every explanation suggests, and the 2L samples support it.

I believe the 2L samples were changed to 24 bit.

[The Computer Audiophile]

+1 and yes I agree. As a long time Linux user and open source supporter I have to oppose MQA on it's "end-to-end takeover" closed source repercussions alone. Are we to give away our freedom for a arguably extremely subtle SQ improvement (if it truly exists and is not the result of some buried EQ or marketing other trick).

Without a doubt some other form of improved lossless compression can only be just around the corner that will equal MQA's bucket size reduction without the accompanying negatives.

CA uses a proprietary CMS. Are you opposed? :~)

[mansr]

CA uses a proprietary CMS. Are you opposed? :~)

 

It renders to standard HTML and doesn't require special support in my router, browser, and monitor, so I don't mind.

[Jud]

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.

 

 

I think, to be fair, that Dolby, mp3, and ALAC (after some time) had a wider consumer market open to them than the audiophile niche market at which MQA is most likely aimed. (A/k/a, "How do we do it? Volume!") Higher volume allows sufficient earnings at relatively low royalty rates, making cheating a less financially attractive proposition. By contrast, MQA volume will likely be lower, thus higher royalty rates, thus making cheating more attractive and each instance of cheating proportionally more financially harmful to the IP owner.

 

MQA also hasn't been totally "super-secret." They have filed patents, which involve some degree of disclosure (though how much is disclosed is an art). They could easily have chosen not even to disclose that much, but to try to keep the technology a closely held trade secret, as many other audio companies have done with digital filtering.

 

I'm not at all against open source - in fact I'd prefer it, certainly on the basis of being able to learn from it myself or through others who are knowledgeable, and on the basis that it would likely be lower cost (if not necessarily free as in beer). But although it is less preferable, I don't see the path MQA has chosen as especially uncommon or unreasonable.

[tallica1]

Another contrasting thought Michael Lavorgna

How Much MQA Is Enough? | AudioStream

[crenca]

CA uses a proprietary CMS. Are you opposed? :~)

 

I mean this with a smile on my face: I am now using a Microsoft OS...but so what?

 

I think it is a bit too easy to say something like "IP/proprietary software is everywhere, so why does it matter with MQA?"

 

Clearly, it is the implications that IP/proprietary software has on the whole digital ecosystem and more specifically with what is important to you (in this case our more narrow "music" ecosystem) that matters.

 

CA uses a proprietary CMS, but much more importantly to you and everyone else, it uses an "open" internet and rests on several "open" protocols (e.g. HTML, TCP/IP, DNS, etc. etc. - putting aside a strict definition/debate of the meaning of "open" for a bit). The question is in the context of our digital music lives, what does MQA most resemble? Is its place in the music digital ecosystem more like your CMS in relation to end users, or is it more like the the place of TCP/IP? I submit it is the latter.

 

Now, what happens when someone comes along and slaps IP, patents, and NDA on TCP/IP (even if this new and improved TCP/IP is a clear improvement on the original in some technical way)?

[Jud]

CA uses a proprietary CMS. Are you opposed? :~)

 

As you are the one paying for it and having to use and troubleshoot it in the first instance (though yes, we eventually pay for it by looking at advertisements or buying CA membership), perhaps you'd be the most appropriate person to answer that.

[mansr]

I think, to be fair, that Dolby, mp3, and ALAC (after some time) had a wider consumer market open to them than the audiophile niche market at which MQA is most likely aimed. (A/k/a, "How do we do it? Volume!") Higher volume allows sufficient earnings at relatively low royalty rates, making cheating a less financially attractive proposition. By contrast, MQA volume will likely be lower, thus higher royalty rates, thus making cheating more attractive and each instance of cheating proportionally more financially harmful to the IP owner.

 

MQA also hasn't been totally "super-secret." They have filed patents, which involve some degree of disclosure (though how much is disclosed is an art). They could easily have chosen not even to disclose that much, but to try to keep the technology a closely held trade secret, as many other audio companies have done with digital filtering.

 

I'm not at all against open source - in fact I'd prefer it, certainly on the basis of being able to learn from it myself or through others who are knowledgeable, and on the basis that it would likely be lower cost (if not necessarily free as in beer). But although it is less preferable, I don't see the path MQA has chosen as especially uncommon or unreasonable.

 

The MQA patents are exactly useless for learning anything about the technology, let alone evaluating its performance.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I mean this with a smile on my face: I am now using a Microsoft OS...but so what?

 

I think it is a bit too easy to say something like "IP/proprietary software is everywhere, so why does it matter with MQA?"

 

Clearly, it is the implications that IP/proprietary software has on the whole digital ecosystem and more specifically with what is important to you (in this case our more narrow "music" ecosystem) that matters.

 

CA uses a proprietary CMS, but much more importantly to you and everyone else, it uses an "open" internet and rests on several "open" protocols (e.g. HTML, TCP/IP, DNS, etc. etc. - putting aside a strict definition/debate of the meaning of "open" for a bit). The question is in the context of our digital music lives, what does MQA most resemble? Is its place in the music digital ecosystem more like your CMS in relation to end users, or is it more like the the place of TCP/IP? I submit it is the latter.

 

Now, what happens when someone comes along and slaps IP, patents, and NDA on TCP/IP (even if this new and improved TCP/IP is a clear improvement on the original in some technical way)?

I hear you. My question was extremely tongue in cheek and followed by a smily face :~)

[lmitche]

It is easy to conceive of a proprietary PC, or dedicated hardware, based MQA software decoder using a microphone to generate room correction and DAC filter settings just like most home theater receivers have today. That would relieve DAC manufacturers of any need for proprietary code, and move the MQA purchase decision into the consumer mass marketplace.

 

It would surprise if this sort of initiative isn't underway today.

[The Computer Audiophile]

As you are the one paying for it and having to use and troubleshoot it in the first instance (though yes, we eventually pay for it by looking at advertisements or buying CA membership), perhaps you'd be the most appropriate person to answer that.

Oh you just had to mention troubleshooting. After a very very long Memorial Day weekend server upgrade, I don't even want to look at that word :~(

 

Fortunately many issues were resolved late last night with an 8GB RAM upgrade :~)

[mansr]

I mean this with a smile on my face: I am now using a Microsoft OS...but so what?

 

I think it is a bit too easy to say something like "IP/proprietary software is everywhere, so why does it matter with MQA?"

 

Clearly, it is the implications that IP/proprietary software has on the whole digital ecosystem and more specifically with what is important to you (in this case our more narrow "music" ecosystem) that matters.

 

CA uses a proprietary CMS, but much more importantly to you and everyone else, it uses an "open" internet and rests on several "open" protocols (e.g. HTML, TCP/IP, DNS, etc. etc. - putting aside a strict definition/debate of the meaning of "open" for a bit). The question is in the context of our digital music lives, what does MQA most resemble? Is its place in the music digital ecosystem more like your CMS in relation to end users, or is it more like the the place of TCP/IP? I submit it is the latter.

 

Now, what happens when someone comes along and slaps IP, patents, and NDA on TCP/IP (even if this new and improved TCP/IP is a clear improvement on the original in some technical way)?

 

You mean like AppleTalk, DECnet, IPX, NetBIOS, and other dead networking technologies?

[crenca]

I hear you. My question was extremely tongue in cheek and followed by a smily face :~)

 

Still, it is clear that many are thinking in similar terms "what do I care, I rely on IP software every day - MQA is no different". Well there is a difference, or at least a differentiator in this (and many other cases)...

[crenca]

You mean like AppleTalk, DECnet, IPX, NetBIOS, and other dead networking technologies?

 

NetBIOS...now that brings back memories, mostly positive believe or not. Fact is I yearn for the server room troubleshooting problems that force me to think about NetBIOS or whatever the equivalent is these days...or is just the cold air I really liked?

[Sal1950]

CA uses a proprietary CMS. Are you opposed? :~)

 

It renders to standard HTML and doesn't require special support in my router, browser, and monitor, so I don't mind.

 

As you are the one paying for it and having to use and troubleshoot it in the first instance (though yes, we eventually pay for it by looking at advertisements or buying CA membership), perhaps you'd be the most appropriate person to answer that.

 

Yes, renders here on my fully open source software so not my sin to atone for.

But you might want to consider church and confession on Friday. There will be a

judgement day for us all.