DARKO: MQA: a non-hostile takeover?

[Miska]

One part that I have not yet mentioned that also annoys me, is that I already have one MQA album (in original 96/24 and MQA version) that is clearly for most part an upsample of 44.1 kHz content.

 

So I don't know what the "authenticated" is supposed to mean, other than that nobody else than MQA company can make encoders or decoders. Or that the content is authentic crap. (many of those recordings are also just plain bad)

[new_media]

One part that I have not yet mentioned that also annoys me, is that I already have one MQA album (in original 96/24 and MQA version) that is clearly for most part an upsample of 44.1 kHz content.

 

So I don't know what the "authenticated" is supposed to mean, other than that nobody else than MQA company can make encoders or decoders. Or that the content is authentic crap. (many of those recordings are also just plain bad)

 

I do wish there was more content to compare. It's pretty hard to tell whether or not the emperor is wearing clothes when he refuses to ride in the parade.

[esldude]

One part that I have not yet mentioned that also annoys me, is that I already have one MQA album (in original 96/24 and MQA version) that is clearly for most part an upsample of 44.1 kHz content.

 

So I don't know what the "authenticated" is supposed to mean, other than that nobody else than MQA company can make encoders or decoders. Or that the content is authentic crap. (many of those recordings are also just plain bad)

 

Master Quality Accounting maybe. Your money is worth just as much to them regardless of whether it is 44.1 or not.

[wdw]

I do wish there was more content to compare. It's pretty hard to tell whether or not the emperor is wearing clothes when he refuses to ride in the parade.

 

+1

MQA has not given us the opportunity to hear and compare their music to a non-MQA file and this is, to my mind, the failing point in their marketing. If they would be willing to show a clear and audible improvement I suspect many of us would be asking them to hurry along with its introduction but it appears they are only willing to tip their hand to the high end audio press and industry insiders. Many of us are keenly interested to hear of these claimed improvements but they seem unwilling to provide the opportunity. Just seems odd.

[esldude]

+1

MQA has not given us the opportunity to hear and compare their music to a non-MQA file and this is, to my mind, the failing point in their marketing. If they would be willing to show a clear and audible improvement I suspect many of us would be asking them to hurry along with its introduction but it appears they are only willing to tip their hand to the high end audio press and industry insiders. Many of us are keenly interested to hear of these claimed improvements but they seem unwilling to provide the opportunity. Just seems odd.

 

Yes, this is it.

 

Imagine somehow stereo was some techno-feat unknown to most. You wanted companies to sign on to providing it end to end as your company had figured it out. All you have to do is provide some public demonstrations and the public would nearly demand it from companies.

 

I remember first seeing HDTV when it was only articles in magazines previously. Went to a public demo of it. The TV was something like $20k at the time. I only needed about 10 seconds viewing to know I wanted it. I could only wait for it to become widespread and affordable as I didn't have $20k to spare and there were no sources. Still even though this was several years I watched for set prices to come down, for a broadcast standard to be actually put on the air and for gear to include it.

 

If I could hear MQA on some familiar material or side by side with the non-MQA, and had the same experience of goodness, even if it takes years for everyone to get on board I would be continuously waiting for it and supporting it when I could. No back and forth about whether it was a good thing. That demo's have very cautiously and carefully avoided affording the public that experience I think tells me one of two things. It isn't that much of an improvement. Or Meridian (the company not part of MQA-hi Chris) is the dumbest marketing outfit to ever have a great sounding bit of tech to peddle to the rest of the world.

[mocenigo]

I just solved the problem by obtaining a DAC with MQA decoding and bunch of tracks for listening and measurement purposes. Down side is still that there's not really any of my normal test material available as MQA and since "nobody" outside of MQA can encode whatever they please to MQA, it makes things really hard to compare properly. Most of the MQA encoded material is such that there is really nothing much to "de-blur" in first place.

 

In any case, I believe I've found a way to decode MQA in software, so comparing should become a little bit easier.

 

I am very curious about your decoding MQA in SW and would be interested in the details.

 

Also, L2 has downloads in various formats including MQA of the same recording (say, a DXD recording available as redbook, DSD up to DSD256, various hi-res PCM variants including DXD, and MQA) so you can compare.

 

Roberto

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[crenca]

Yes, this is it.

 

Imagine somehow stereo was some techno-feat unknown to most. You wanted companies to sign on to providing it end to end as your company had figured it out. All you have to do is provide some public demonstrations and the public would nearly demand it from companies.

 

I remember first seeing HDTV when it was only articles in magazines previously. Went to a public demo of it. The TV was something like $20k at the time. I only needed about 10 seconds viewing to know I wanted it. I could only wait for it to become widespread and affordable as I didn't have $20k to spare and there were no sources. Still even though this was several years I watched for set prices to come down, for a broadcast standard to be actually put on the air and for gear to include it.

 

If I could hear MQA on some familiar material or side by side with the non-MQA, and had the same experience of goodness, even if it takes years for everyone to get on board I would be continuously waiting for it and supporting it when I could. No back and forth about whether it was a good thing. That demo's have very cautiously and carefully avoided affording the public that experience I think tells me one of two things. It isn't that much of an improvement. Or Meridian (the company not part of MQA-hi Chris) is the dumbest marketing outfit to ever have a great sounding bit of tech to peddle to the rest of the world.

 

I have also wondered along these lines. Chris wants MQA to have a "fair shake", but in this particular market where "voodoo" (such as this: Audio Accessories - Crystals, Brilliant Pebbles) is a real and persistent problem, I wonder if companies have to be more cognizant of the position they put the consumer in when they simply want us to trust them and their handpicked individuals who have signed an NDA. I tend to believe the insiders who hear an improvement, but I don't get the sense it is along the lines of mono > stereo, or low-def CRT > 1080. I get the sense it is real SQ tweak but the actual improvement of it is relatively small (give or take depending on the original recording). It could be worth it if it played nice with the rest of our currently open playback chains/formats, but of course it demands an end to end takeover. Chris seems to imply that such a criticism is based on "speculation" which I find strange because the demands that MQA places on the "end to end" and the end user as far as format/rights/DAC are not speculation at all...

[wdw]

.....Or Meridian (the company not part of MQA-hi Chris) is the dumbest marketing outfit to ever have a great sounding bit of tech to peddle to the rest of the world.

 

Had a great laugh at that one, thanks...my thoughts exactly.

Warren

[mansr]

+1

MQA has not given us the opportunity to hear and compare their music to a non-MQA file and this is, to my mind, the failing point in their marketing. If they would be willing to show a clear and audible improvement I suspect many of us would be asking them to hurry along with its introduction but it appears they are only willing to tip their hand to the high end audio press and industry insiders. Many of us are keenly interested to hear of these claimed improvements but they seem unwilling to provide the opportunity. Just seems odd.

 

They can't let you listen to it properly until the audiophile press has had time to tell you what to hear.

[Axiom05]

Or Meridian (the company not part of MQA-hi Chris) is the dumbest marketing outfit to ever have a great sounding bit of tech to peddle to the rest of the world.

 

In the latest issue of "Copper Magazine," Ken Kessler described Meridian as "aloof and inventive."

[Tony Lauck]

I've mentioned this once before and I think it bears repeating. Almost all the people I've talked to who don't like MQA or who have bad things to say about it, haven't signed an NDA with the company to find out the fine details. Most are speculating. Others have made statements about it that I believe are marketing based, such as "We don't support MQA because ..." On the other hand, those who have signed the NDA and are digging deep into the technology, with a very good understanding of digital filtering, have said it's really advanced and that it takes brilliant minds to come up with this stuff.

 

I really worry that MQA is technically beyond the reach of most peoples' understanding and is too confusing to both manufacturers and consumers. Thus, it won't succeed because of this difficulty and confusion.

 

If it doesn't succeed on its merits, I am totally fine with that. that's the way a somewhat free market works. I just hope it gets a fair shake. We all win if it gets a fair shake, wether or not it succeeds.

 

Have you signed the NDA?

[Allan F]

I really worry that MQA is technically beyond the reach of most peoples' understanding and is too confusing to both manufacturers and consumers. Thus, it won't succeed because of this difficulty and confusion.

Bob Stuart should be worrying a lot more, as he must accept the blame for this state of affairs.

[james45974]

I really worry that MQA is technically beyond the reach of most peoples' understanding and is too confusing to both manufacturers and consumers. Thus, it won't succeed because of this difficulty and confusion.

 

Chris, is this comment from first hand knowledge or somewhat speculative? It smacks of audiophile elitism as far as I am concerned. Us unwashed masses have to wait until the high priests of MQA deem us worthy enough to grace us with their technology! The bottom line is does it sound good or not, something the vast majority have not had any chance of trying out on their own outside of very controlled auditions. The whole "rollout" seems like an exercise in social engineering!

 

If that is the case I hope MQA hits an iceberg in the middle of the night and goes down will all hands on board.

 

Since MQA is separate from Meridian is it public knowledge what type of corporate structure is involved? Does Meridian retain sole ownership or majority board members? I stand to be corrected but I still feel that MQA = Meridian, the attempt at a separation notwithstanding.

[jabbr]

I've mentioned this once before and I think it bears repeating. Almost all the people I've talked to who don't like MQA or who have bad things to say about it, haven't signed an NDA with the company to find out the fine details. Most are speculating.

 

That's the biggest problem I have with it -- I don't want to use a technology that isn't publicly specified let alone open.

 

Secrecy and hand waving are an invitation to speculate.

 

Others have made statements about it that I believe are marketing based, such as "We don't support MQA because ..." On the other hand, those who have signed the NDA and are digging deep into the technology, with a very good understanding of digital filtering, have said it's really advanced and that it takes brilliant minds to come up with this stuff.

If that unique then patent.

I really worry that MQA is technically beyond the reach of most peoples' understanding and is too confusing to both manufacturers and consumers. Thus, it won't succeed because of this difficulty and confusion.

...

If it doesn't succeed on its merits, I am totally fine with that. that's the way a somewhat free market works. I just hope it gets a fair shake. We all win if it gets a fair shake, wether or not it succeeds.

 

If you want an idea to get a fair shake you need to describe the idea to people who might have the capability to understand.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris, is this comment from first hand knowledge or somewhat speculative? It smacks of audiophile elitism as far as I am concerned. Us unwashed masses have to wait until the high priests of MQA deem us worthy enough to grace us with their technology! The bottom line is does it sound good or not, something the vast majority have not had any chance of trying out on their own outside of very controlled auditions. The whole "rollout" seems like an exercise in social engineering!

 

If that is the case I hope MQA hits an iceberg in the middle of the night and goes down will all hands on board.

 

Since MQA is separate from Meridian is it public knowledge what type of corporate structure is involved? Does Meridian retain sole ownership or majority board members? I stand to be corrected but I still feel that MQA = Meridian, the attempt at a separation notwithstanding.

Hi Jim - I certainly hear what you're saying. Everything I say is first hand. But don't get me wrong, the technology is way beyond my level of knowledge. I hope I didn't make it seem like I was one who should be held above because I understand it.

 

Your bottom line of sound quality is a good bottom line, but it really seems like that's not going to be enough for most of the skeptics. They want open source, better quality, lossless, detailed instructions not in the patent, etc... There's nothing wrong with wanting things, but it comes off as not giving MQA a fair shake.

 

With the respect to the roll out, no further comment is necessary. I don't know anyone who has been impressed with it.

[mansr]

If that unique then patent.

 

They have some patents. I have looked at them, and I am not impressed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @jabbr If you don't use technology that's open, how are you typing your forum comments, open hardware and software? That said, I understand your concerns and have plenty of concerns myself :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

They have some patents. I have looked at them, and I am not impressed.

What's unimpressive about the patents? The technology or the fact they have released as little information as possible to hide what they are doing from potential competitors?

[jabbr]

Hi @jabbr If you don't use technology that's open, how are you typing your forum comments, open hardware and software? That said, I understand your concerns and have plenty of concerns myself :~)

 

Actually ... I *could* be which is what is important. I'm typing into my MacBook, but I'm typing into Chrome, and I could be typing into Safari or IE, and I could be typing on a Windows PC, or Linux, and using the HTTP protocol, your software hopefully doesn't care because the HTTP protocol is open. As I've said, your own server software can be proprietary, as can my client software, but the transmission format is what needs to be open. Where would we be without WAV,AIFF,DSF files? Imagine what the internet would be like without the SMTP,FTP,HTTP protocols, what if TimBL hadn't make the browser open? What if the only browser worked on a Windows PC? What if IBM hadn't opened the specification for the PC itself? Where would we be?

[mansr]

What's unimpressive about the patents? The technology or the fact they have released as little information as possible to hide what they are doing from potential competitors?

Both.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Both.

I get the impression you don't like the patent system. What MQA has done with its patent(s) is a smart business move and complies with all rules.

[tailspn]

Sonic virtues, and benefit to Meridian/Stewart aside, what's the problem(s) MQA is trying to resolve?

[mansr]

Sonic virtues, and benefit to Meridian/Stewart aside, what's the problem(s) MQA is trying to resolve?

Meridian not making enough money. MLP flopped, so now they're trying this.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Sonic virtues, and benefit to Meridian/Stewart aside, what's the problem(s) MQA is trying to resolve?

Good question, and one I asked Bob at an RMAF panel.

[Axiom05]

Good question, and one I asked Bob at an RMAF panel.

 

So do I assume from your lack of elaboration that he responded with his typical rhetoric or semantic tricks. (This is the impression that I have come to after reading his Q&A responses; he doesn't seem to answer many questions directly)