Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

Instead of claiming that MQA version 'sounds better' than the original Hi-Res recording why not first perform an honest ABX test (not looking at DAC lights or audio driver control panel) & see if the reviewer really can tell the difference between the two formats? I did with my Explorer2 DAC using 2L test bench samples (DXD vs MQA) & failed:

foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.10
2016-06-01 10:40:40

File A: 2L-056_03_stereo_DXD.flac
SHA1: 1dd9a4538e579fd26d1d80ee82a8b372aab93b46
File B: 2L-056_03_stereo_DXD_mqa.flac
SHA1: a8683af0e21d1c6e8776bfd29ab52ed02b638d96

Used DSPs:
Resampler (SoX) mod2

Output:
ASIO : Meridian USB2 ASIO Driver
Crossfading: NO

10:40:40 : Test started.
10:41:20 : 00/01
10:41:53 : 00/02
10:42:24 : 01/03
10:42:56 : 01/04
10:43:28 : 01/05
10:44:16 : 01/06
10:44:23 : 01/07
10:45:10 : 02/08
10:45:38 : 03/09
10:46:24 : 04/10
10:46:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 4/10
Probability that you were guessing: 82.8%

-- signature --
0991ab381c45475b532fe6d207fee65e442f0edb

 

Thing is, as Robert Harley explains the point of MQA is not to "be" the Hi-Res, but to "sound like" the Hi-Res (so that artists/labels can give you the sound but not the actual article of value). In this sense, MQA does not really have to exceed DXD but only "sound like" DXD, or at least be enough of an improvement over 16/44 that the general consumer that he believes he is getting "studio master" sound even though he is not actually getting the "studio master" file.

 

You were supposed to fail...

 

Which is to say (for those who are not keeping up) the point of MQA is not SQ...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Instead of claiming that MQA version 'sounds better' than the original Hi-Res recording why not first perform an honest ABX test (not looking at DAC lights or audio driver control panel) & see if the reviewer really can tell the difference between the two formats? I did with my Explorer2 DAC using 2L test bench samples (DXD vs MQA) & failed:

foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.10
2016-06-01 10:40:40

File A: 2L-056_03_stereo_DXD.flac
SHA1: 1dd9a4538e579fd26d1d80ee82a8b372aab93b46
File B: 2L-056_03_stereo_DXD_mqa.flac
SHA1: a8683af0e21d1c6e8776bfd29ab52ed02b638d96

Used DSPs:
Resampler (SoX) mod2

Output:
ASIO : Meridian USB2 ASIO Driver
Crossfading: NO

10:40:40 : Test started.
10:41:20 : 00/01
10:41:53 : 00/02
10:42:24 : 01/03
10:42:56 : 01/04
10:43:28 : 01/05
10:44:16 : 01/06
10:44:23 : 01/07
10:45:10 : 02/08
10:45:38 : 03/09
10:46:24 : 04/10
10:46:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 4/10
Probability that you were guessing: 82.8%

-- signature --
0991ab381c45475b532fe6d207fee65e442f0edb

 

For the same reason they never do it when reviewing\comparing anything else. You can fill in what that reason is depending on your position about the necessity of DBTs in audio evaluation.

 

BTW, I'd be interested if you felt like trying to "teach yourself" how the MQA files sound different, and once you pick out a few of the MQA characteristics, see if your test score improves.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
For the same reason they never do it when reviewing\comparing anything else. You can fill in what that reason is depending on your position about the necessity of DBTs in audio evaluation.

 

BTW, I'd be interested if you felt like trying to "teach yourself" how the MQA files sound different, and once you pick out a few of the MQA characteristics, see if your test score improves.

 

Firedog,

 

Are you aware of what esldude says here:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/schiit-audio-talks-mqa-28716/index2.html#post547517

 

about listeners trained and on best of class equipment only "hearing" the improvement 56 vs 44. This apparently a test Bob himself did and submitted to AES. I can neither confirm or deny this (just going off what esldude says about it at face value) but I wonder if MQA vs. DXD vs. DSD128 (and above) is really a "wow factor' differentiator or is it "audiophile" subtle and personal.

 

Now, taking older/poorly recorded files (what 99.99% listen to) it is no doubt very significant. Which simply brings us back to Robert's point about "sounds like" studio master and the real business case for MQA...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Yes, but before prescribing a treatment, a physician will perform tests and measurements to determine the actual ailment.

 

Indeed. So we would want to try to determine whether group delay was responsible for the perception of more bass.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
For the same reason they never do it when reviewing\comparing anything else. You can fill in what that reason is depending on your position about the necessity of DBTs in audio evaluation.

 

Without closely bias controled blind listening tests, any statements made on SQ will forever remain simply one persons opinion. The end result of any sighted listening can only be classified as illusion and never a fact.

Why many in the industry run from DBT's like roaches from the light can also only be stated in opinion and never fact. Excuses, excuses, excuses are always the order of the day. LOL

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
Without closely bias controled blind listening tests, any statements made on SQ will forever remain simply one persons opinion. The end result of any sighted listening can only be classified as illusion and never a fact.

Why many in the industry run from DBT's like roaches from the light can also only be stated in opinion and never fact. Excuses, excuses, excuses are always the order of the day. LOL

You are asking for something that's not possible. You want facts about sound quality which is an inherent subjective thing and is different for everybody and we all have different equipment (i.e. ears).

 

Even with, "closely bias controled (sic) blind listening tests" any statements about sound quality, "will forever remain simply one persons opinion."

 

The end result of every listening test, whether sighted or blind, with respect to sound quality will always be opinion.

 

I guess I don't get what you are saying. Can you give me an example where a listening test referencing sound quality could possibly lead to facts?

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Without closely bias controled blind listening tests, any statements made on SQ will forever remain simply one persons opinion. The end result of any sighted listening can only be classified as illusion and never a fact.

Why many in the industry run from DBT's like roaches from the light can also only be stated in opinion and never fact. Excuses, excuses, excuses are always the order of the day. LOL

 

A blind listening test is only about whether listeners can hear a difference between sound sources, it is not some kind of 'objective' test about whether one sound source is 'better' or 'more accurate' than another.

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
You are asking for something that's not possible. You want facts about sound quality which is an inherent subjective thing and is different for everybody and we all have different equipment (i.e. ears).

 

Even with, "closely bias controled (sic) blind listening tests" any statements about sound quality, "will forever remain simply one persons opinion."

 

The end result of every listening test, whether sighted or blind, with respect to sound quality will always be opinion.

 

I guess I don't get what you are saying. Can you give me an example where a listening test referencing sound quality could possibly lead to facts?

 

But that flys in the face of what MQA is (allegedly) all about does it not? Is it not about giving you a "sounds like" studio master experience through a real and objective technological advance? Would not a healthy majority of interested/trained/audiophile listeners (weeding out the computer speaker/earbud crowd here) prefer (as is indeed being reported by those in the press who have heard MQA demos) the MQA sound, going so far as to call it the "most significant audio advance in my lifetime" (I think it was a TAS writer who said this - I can't keep up).

 

While something called "fidelity" is a mix of subjective/objective factors, surely an A/B of good design could indicate something of significance even if it is not a mathmatical/catetogorical truth or "fact".

 

I suppose I am only saying that it looks like Bob himself (as reported upstream by elsdude) did this (trained listeners, high end gear, MQA vs non) and if it revealed anything it was that MQA was a "subtle" improvement with 5% confidence level (statistically this means it was almost guesswork - if I am not mistaken). Now, how to explain the unreservadly "game changer/obvioius improvement" sound that is being reported?

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

While something called "fidelity" is a mix of subjective/objective factors, surely an A/B of good design could indicate something of significance even if it is not a mathmatical/catetogorical truth or "fact".

 

I suppose I am only saying that it looks like Bob himself (as reported upstream by elsdude) did this (trained listeners, high end gear, MQA vs non) and if it revealed anything it was that MQA was a "subtle" improvement with 5% confidence level (statistically this means it was almost guesswork - if I am not mistaken). Now, how to explain the unreservadly "game changer/obvioius improvement" sound that is being reported?

 

Read the academic literature on "echoic memory," and it may shed some light for you on what sorts of musical phenomena might be fit subjects for "an A/B test of good design."

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
A blind listening test is only about whether listeners can hear a difference between sound sources, it is not some kind of 'objective' test about whether one sound source is 'better' or 'more accurate' than another.

Oh absolutely correct, I never intended to claim otherwise.

With DBT's we can only present evidence that any claimed audible differences actually exists and are not the result of a listeners imagination.

This has no relationship to whats more accurate. We would need supporting measurements to do that.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

As far as I'm concerned, what we actually end up with remains to be seen, but what they're CLAIMING about the relationship between MQA and DRM seems relatively clear.....

 

If you buy an "MQA file":

1) You will be able to play it in REGULAR NOT MQA format on any regular player or DAC

2) You will be able to play it IN MQA QUALITY on any MQA certified device or player

3) On that MQA certified player you will get an indicator showing you that you really have an unaltered MQA file

4) Since it doesn't contain any DRM, that MQA file will be "just an MQA file"; it will NOT be licensed to you by name, or to the specific devices you own, and will play in full MQA quality on ANY MQA certified device owned by anyone.

 

I found all of that quite clearly contained in his answers about DRM: Each MQA file will contain information and or encryption that can be used to certify that it is identical to the original MQA file and hasn't been altered (authentication), so it will prove to you that it's really the MQA file you thought it was; but it does NOT contain any mechanism to know who you are, or to be licensed to be played only on a specific piece of equipment, or to be playable only by any particular owner (which would be DRM).

 

In other words, in order to play that MQA file at "full MQA quality", you will need to be in possession of ANY MQA certified device, and ANY MQA certified device will be able to play ANY MQA file, at full MQA quality, with no restriction. So, if you want to play an MQA file at full quality, you will have to have purchased an "MQA license" of some sort along the way (in the form of your MQA certified device), but there is nothing included that would prevent you from playing a file you got from someone else, or that would prevent you from providing a copy of a file you have to someone else; (limiting those options is what most of us mean by DRM).

 

Now, to be honest, this is how I interpret the claims that were made, and this seems to agree with their claim of "no DRM". However, honestly, I can't imagine that the music industry would be very pleased with this limitation. (Although, to be equally honest, it is the same situation as they currently have with FLAC.... and, in practice, DRM seems to be quite effective at inconveniencing legitimate customers, and relatively useless at preventing determined pirates. Perhaps they've actually decided that making legitimate customers happy is more important to sales than trying - and failing - to prevent illegal piracy.)

 

I understand these arguments. There is always the question how much DRM influences SQ and MQA seems to offer an improvement instead of degradation. DRM also restricts the use of something the consumers payed for and I see no explanation in these answers how much downloads of MQA files can be used on different devices (I expect there will be no physical media with MQA even if it would be possible).

Internet streaming is the best DRM solution for the labels as there are no files stored on the user end and it is obvious to everyone that the consumer owns nothing- just a service. Looking at the file sizes on the 2L website I see that MQA is 2-2.5x the size of 16/44.1 and that would make streaming possible for only a few with very good internet service (at least not for me). From Bob's answers I do not see any explanation of MQA statements about file size and I have not seen any info from Tidal either.

Link to comment
As far as I'm concerned, what we actually end up with remains to be seen, but what they're CLAIMING about the relationship between MQA and DRM seems relatively clear........

 

As was said upstream - DRM is what DRM does. MQA/Meridian/Bob can not define what DRM is and then (by said self serving definition) then claim that MQA is not DRM. MQA in its current form is DRM because the end user (who possess the digital file - putting aside whether he "owns" or licences it) is "managed" (i.e what he hears) by whether he has MQA DAC - if not then he only has "rights" to the 16/44 portion of the file (and if he attempts to access the rest of the file he is violating IP law).

 

Your right, MQA is not DRM in the form of copy management, encryption, etc - but then DRM was never only these things in the first place (despite what MQA/Meridian/Bob would have you believe). However (as has already been said) if you get a significant portion of the market to adapt an proprietary format, then you have the opportunity to do other things...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Will MQA certification of a DAC intrinsically change it's temporal blur behaviour and with that also play standard FLAC and WAV files with enhanced sound performance? This should be a logical 'extra' even though it is not fed with a MQA-coded file, it should at least compensate the DAC's time-smearing at all times..

Link to comment

 

This is the first full on technical rebuttal of MQA's "processing" (DSP) that I can reacall, particularly the much emphasized "time domain" aspect. Indeed, the author claims that this aspect of MQA leads to worse sound than standard 96/192 because this aspect leads to "aliasing artifacts" that are more audible than the problem MQA solves...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...
It makes me sick whenever people bring up archimago.

What's your problem?

JackNicholson.jpg

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
Doesn't it bother anyone that Dirac Live and other room corrections are not possible with MQA? I am assuming that all demos were without room correction? Seems like MQA is pushing room correction back into the "dark ages."

Hi Kevin - Dirac and all room correction devices can work with MQA just like any other DAC. The companies just need to license the tech from MQA.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Hi Kevin - Dirac and all room correction devices can work with MQA just like any other DAC. The companies just need to license the tech from MQA.
How would that work? My dac does not have Dirac Live capability inside of it. I use my HTPC to do Dirac and then output to the dac. That doesn't seem possible with MQA?

 

Would Dirac have to decode the MQA and then re-encode it, corrected and then my dac with MQA decodes the corrected signal?

Link to comment
How would that work? My dac does not have Dirac Live capability inside of it. I use my HTPC to do Dirac and then output to the dac. That doesn't seem possible with MQA?

 

Would Dirac have to decode the MQA and then re-encode it, corrected and then my dac with MQA decodes the corrected signal?

I believe it's quite possible. I don't know the inside details of how Dirac would want to handle it though.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
How would that work? My dac does not have Dirac Live capability inside of it. I use my HTPC to do Dirac and then output to the dac. That doesn't seem possible with MQA?

 

Would Dirac have to decode the MQA and then re-encode it, corrected and then my dac with MQA decodes the corrected signal?

 

 

 

I believe it's quite possible. I don't know the inside details of how Dirac would want to handle it though.

 

AFAIK your correct Kevin M, we've been down this road here before.

You would have to use the analog output of a MQA DAC into something like a miniDSP box with analog inputs that will do a ADC first, do DSP, then do another DAC output. :(

MQA is DRM by any other name. Oppose it at all costs.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
AFAIK your correct Kevin M, we've been down this road here before.

You would have to use the analog output of a MQA DAC into something like a miniDSP box with analog inputs that will do a ADC first, do DSP, then do another DAC output. :(

MQA is DRM by any other name. Oppose it at all costs.

Think bigger picture. Dirac talks to MQA to implement a full solution. Thinking small, with only the current solutions will lead you down the path of using analog outputs into a DSP solution.

 

No comment about DRM.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Think bigger picture. Dirac talks to MQA to implement a full solution. Thinking small, with only the current solutions will lead you down the path of using analog outputs into a DSP solution.

 

No comment about DRM.

 

That's the whole point Chris. You'll have to turn over your entire digital chain to Meridian implemented-approved hardware forever. All Meridian All The Time. A digital world totally under control of Meridian. What about your beloved DSD? The end for that too.

The answer to a problem that never existed. It's real reason for existence is to take control of our music and make huge fortunes for Meridian and the music labels/distributors.

I understand why you don't want to comment on DRM, you've already signed up on the MQA bandwagon. But I think you've noticed that a good segment of the CA membership isn't on board.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...