DARKO: MQA: a non-hostile takeover?

[The Computer Audiophile]

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)

See for yourself (probably have to skip ahead) :~)

 

[video=youtube_share;cxyvVXPmJ0o]

[fiske]

2L has their testbench here; 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

 

All their albums are originally recorded in DXD and available in a wide range of resolutions, including DXD, DSD64 and DSD128 and now MQA along with physical products like CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-ray and vinyl.

 

Morten Lindberg, the man behind 2L, says that a really good recording should be able to bodily move the listener.

Welcome to the nordic sound ;-)

 

fiske

[james45974]

2L has their testbench here; 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

 

All their albums are originally recorded in DXD and available in a wide range of resolutions, including DXD, DSD64 and DSD128 and now MQA along with physical products like CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-ray and vinyl.

 

Morten Lindberg, the man behind 2L, says that a really good recording should be able to bodily move the listener.

Welcome to the nordic sound ;-)

 

fiske

 

This has been mentioned before, and is all well and good but is doesn't get you very far. 2L is a fine label, I have some experience with their offerings, but for a true test of MQA people need access to the familiar. Pulling names out of a hat randomly, where is the Coltrane, Madonna, Chicago, Jennifer Warnes, Michael Jackson, Herbie Hancock, Beyonce, on and on and on. Test driving MQA with the familiar is where we need to head. How may years will we have to wait? It seems like with the speed of change in the computer industry that MQA is at risk of the their time passing.

[crenca]

This has been mentioned before, and is all well and good but is doesn't get you very far. 2L is a fine label, I have some experience with their offerings, but for a true test of MQA people need access to the familiar. Pulling names out of a hat randomly, where is the Coltrane, Madonna, Chicago, Jennifer Warnes, Michael Jackson, Herbie Hancock, Beyonce, on and on and on. Test driving MQA with the familiar is where we need to head. How may years will we have to wait? It seems like with the speed of change in the computer industry that MQA is at risk of the their time passing.

 

With the multitrack, highly processed, multiple A>D Dac's used in various stages (i.e. recording, mixing, etc.) recordings with which most people are "familiar" (i.e Madonna, Chicago, etc.) it strikes me that the MQA end-to-end process is fairly involved, perhaps even comparable to a remastering project. So it seems to me that an honest MQA "remastering" of such works is going to take time and I suspect the the industry is realizing that the real effort involved in this is probably not going to reap a $return$ on investment.

 

With labels such as 2L who are already observing best practices in recording/mixing/delivery (i.e. high sample rates, minimal miking and mixing, etc. - though let's admit these sorts of lables are few and far between and mostly record Classical and Jazz) one has to question what MQA's DSP enhancement brings to the table. Many here say it is just "different" and not prima facie "better" than high sample rate PCM/DSD.

 

MQA's niche appears to be the rock/pop audiophile who wants the inherent flaws of the recording practices of that genre to be cleaned up a bit...

[james45974]

MQA's niche appears to be the rock/pop audiophile who wants the inherent flaws of the recording practices of that genre to be cleaned up a bit...

 

Now we are dividing the pie into fractions of a slice!

[Octavius]

With the multitrack, highly processed, multiple A>D Dac's used in various stages (i.e. recording, mixing, etc.) recordings with which most people are "familiar" (i.e Madonna, Chicago, etc.) it strikes me that the MQA end-to-end process is fairly involved, perhaps even comparable to a remastering project. So it seems to me that an honest MQA "remastering" of such works is going to take time and I suspect the the industry is realizing that the real effort involved in this is probably not going to reap a $return$ on investment.

 

With labels such as 2L who are already observing best practices in recording/mixing/delivery (i.e. high sample rates, minimal miking and mixing, etc. - though let's admit these sorts of lables are few and far between and mostly record Classical and Jazz) one has to question what MQA's DSP enhancement brings to the table. Many here say it is just "different" and not prima facie "better" than high sample rate PCM/DSD.

 

MQA's niche appears to be the rock/pop audiophile who wants the inherent flaws of the recording practices of that genre to be cleaned up a bit...

 

Not necessarily.

I listen mostly to classical music and MQA does make quite a big difference vs redbook.

 

I think I even have a very slight preference for MQA vs DXD or DSD256. Being arguably better than DXD or DSD256 is a big deal IMO taking into account how smaller the file is.

[austinpop]

I find it telling that respected DAC designers like Paul McGowan (PS Audio), Charlie Hansen (Ayre), Mike Moffat (Schiit), and John Siau (Benchmark) have all expressed grave reservations about MQA. See:

Schiit Audio, Headphone amps and DACs made in USA.

MQA thoughts | PS Audio

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

 

Paul has described on his forum the trouble they've had where MQA's DAC filters interfere with PS Audio's own, with poor results.

 

It is also interesting that for the last year or more, leading up to the 2016 CES, MQA had been expected to be a software implementation that would work with any DAC. In fact Auralic had even posted on their FB page about their imminent support for MQA in their Aries streamers. So clearly until this point, the ability to do MQA decoding is software, upstream of the DAC, was on the table. While it's hard to say what happened behind closed doors, it does appear that the "end to end" aspect of MQA, which requires MQA decoding to be in the DAC, was finalized shortly before CES.

 

Like many on this thread, I already own expensive DACs I love. I was very excited about MQA when it was something that could be done in software upstream of my DAC. I lost interest when the only way to play was to "upgrade" my DAC. Especially when the DAC HW vendors I respect have no plans to adopt MQA.

 

For now, I am firmly in the "wait and see" camp.

[fiske]

I agree 100% with you.

All my music is in FLAC and DSF format stored on my own HDD and NAS. Available in either Stereo or Multichannel.

I have currently no interest in MQA.

Neither has my wife. She has not heard of it and couldn't care less. :-)

[Tony Lauck]

This has been mentioned before, and is all well and good but is doesn't get you very far. 2L is a fine label, I have some experience with their offerings, but for a true test of MQA people need access to the familiar. Pulling names out of a hat randomly, where is the Coltrane, Madonna, Chicago, Jennifer Warnes, Michael Jackson, Herbie Hancock, Beyonce, on and on and on. Test driving MQA with the familiar is where we need to head. How may years will we have to wait? It seems like with the speed of change in the computer industry that MQA is at risk of the their time passing.

 

The only test that I would consider would be where I got to provide several hi-res files of my choice, convert them to MQA, and then convert them back. This would allow for the best possible and fairest test of the format, since it would allow familiar recordings and the entire record-playback system would be the same, except for the insertion of MQA. (And of course, it would have to be possible to do this without signing any NDA's or other agreements that could limit what could be said. And no payola, either.)

[jabbr]

The only test that I would consider would be where I got to provide several hi-res files of my choice, convert them to MQA, and then convert them back. This would allow for the best possible and fairest test of the format, since it would allow familiar recordings and the entire record-playback system would be the same, except for the insertion of MQA. (And of course, it would have to be possible to do this without signing any NDA's or other agreements that could limit what could be said. And no payola, either.)

 

Yes that would be a reasonable test of the quality of the compression-decompression, as well as "deblurring" filter. Is there information that suggests the deblurring filter has earthshatteringly new properties?

[crenca]

The only test that I would consider would be where I got to provide several hi-res files of my choice, convert them to MQA, and then convert them back. This would allow for the best possible and fairest test of the format, since it would allow familiar recordings and the entire record-playback system would be the same, except for the insertion of MQA. (And of course, it would have to be possible to do this without signing any NDA's or other agreements that could limit what could be said. And no payola, either.)

 

What would you say to those who say that this is essentially and fundamentally "unfair"? Our own Computer Audiophile (Chris) has said that this sort of thinking and stance vis-a-vis the market is in no way giving products such as MQA a "fair shake", and that for technology to advance we *NEED* NDA's, closed/proprietary formats at the base of the (our) digital ecosystem, magic-black-boxes, etc. and by resisting these things we are bringing some sort of unrealistic "open market" ideology that leads to an unnecessary skepticism?

 

In other words Tony, your demands are unreasonable and luddite and you should just trust "us" (i.e. all the "geniuses" who come up with magic black boxes) and stop being a self directed consumer/internet warrior and take your hi-fi medicine...

 

p.s. I am not impugning this attitude on Chris, at least not in full. It IS the attitude of the editors of Stereophile, Absolute Sound, etc. and the blatant arrogance of it can hardly be over stated. However in this thread Chris has been attempting to argue for a receptivity of MQA that I think borrows some of these elements...

[Rt66indierock]

Here is my scorecard on MQA.

Robert Harley evaded my question at T.H.E. Show

John Atkinson pulled semantic tricks in MQA Questions and Answers

Michael Lavorgna twisted what I said

Steve Stone tried pull the reliable source trick

The Meridian staff gave the A/B I wanted as noted in previous post then either evaded follow up questions or gave me answers that contradicted what had been written about authentication.

Bob Stuart hasn't given a straight answer that I've read or seen.

 

As of today I not received a direct response to any MQA question I've asked. So why should I give them a fair shake?

[wdw]

Hello Chris,

This is the thread that MQA and Mr. (Dr.?...dunno) Stuart should be asked to jump into. It is the marketing and the vaguaries of this that need to be addressed. Perhaps you could ask him to pipe in and answer some of these concerns.

wdw

[Allan F]

p.s. I am not impugning this attitude on Chris, at least not in full. It IS the attitude of the editors of Stereophile, Absolute Sound, etc. and the blatant arrogance of it can hardly be over stated. However in this thread Chris has been attempting to argue for a receptivity of MQA that I think borrows some of these elements...

 

Sounds like "fair comment" to me.

[Melvin]

What would you say to those who say that this is essentially and fundamentally "unfair"? Our own Computer Audiophile (Chris) has said that this sort of thinking and stance vis-a-vis the market is in no way giving products such as MQA a "fair shake", and that for technology to advance we *NEED* NDA's, closed/proprietary formats at the base of the (our) digital ecosystem, magic-black-boxes, etc. and by resisting these things we are bringing some sort of unrealistic "open market" ideology that leads to an unnecessary skepticism?

 

In other words Tony, your demands are unreasonable and luddite and you should just trust "us" (i.e. all the "geniuses" who come up with magic black boxes) and stop being a self directed consumer/internet warrior and take your hi-fi medicine...

 

p.s. I am not impugning this attitude on Chris, at least not in full. It IS the attitude of the editors of Stereophile, Absolute Sound, etc. and the blatant arrogance of it can hardly be over stated. However in this thread Chris has been attempting to argue for a receptivity of MQA that I think borrows some of these elements...

 

Funny, I think Chris was simply asking for folks to hear MQA before deciding it's all BS. Hearing it in your own system with familiar music is key, of course, but at least hear it before passing judgement.

[Axiom05]

Hello Chris,

This is the thread that MQA and Mr. (Dr.?...dunno) Stuart should be asked to jump into. It is the marketing and the vaguaries of this that need to be addressed. Perhaps you could ask him to pipe in and answer some of these concerns.

wdw

 

Based upon the video that Chris posted, I think it is pretty clear what the goal of MQA is (even if nothing else was). Bob Stuart/MQA are not interested in audiophiles, they are only interested in the so-called masses. In the video he keeps mentioning mp3 and AAC. He wants MQA files to replace everything that would have been in either mp3 or AAC format. Tidal likes MQA because it makes their lives much easier: they only have one file format to deal with. Tidal receives an MQA file from the record label and they just stream it, no conversions necessary and it uses lower bandwidth than a hi-res file. He is going for the smart phone market. Think about it, if every smart phone made produces a royalty payment for MQA, that would be a pretty nice financial coup.

 

Edit: There is no reason for MQA to market to audiophiles, we are not important to their vision.

[jabbr]

Based upon the video that Chris posted, I think it is pretty clear what the goal of MQA is (even if nothing else was). Bob Stuart/MQA are not interested in audiophiles, they are only interested in the so-called masses. In the video he keeps mentioning mp3 and AAC. He wants MQA files to replace everything that would have been in either mp3 or AAC format. Tidal likes MQA because it makes their lives much easier: they only have one file format to deal with. Tidal receives an MQA file from the record label and they just stream it, no conversions necessary and it uses lower bandwidth than a hi-res file. He is going for the smart phone market. Think about it, if every smart phone made produces a royalty payment for MQA, that would be a pretty nice financial coup.

 

Best I can tell this is exactly where it's at.

 

Totally agree and I'd be happy to have MQA show up on my iPhone.

 

Since I don't use AAC nor MP3 at home you'd have to demonstrate to me that it's ***significantly*** better than say HQPlayer because the format is proprietary -- really like I need to buy yet another copy of A Love Supreme and Kind Of Blue just like I need yet another hole in my head.

 

The value proposition seems to be: repurchase media library yet again (MQA) vs purchase software that can transform my entire library (HQPlayer)

 

And yeah ... I'm just a customer who hasn't heard it, but just like test driving a car, I need to be better sold on the idea before I give a more serious look.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Funny, I think Chris was simply asking for folks to hear MQA before deciding it's all BS. Hearing it in your own system with familiar music is key, of course, but at least hear it before passing judgement.

Yes. Hear it and understand it before screaming "fraud" all over the Internet.

 

I see no reason why anyone in the press would be evasive when it comes to talking about MQA. That's weird to me. I just want to know all the facts and help people get all the facts. However it shakes out in the end is cool with me as long as it's based on facts.

[Axiom05]

Yes. Hear it and understand it before screaming "fraud" all over the Internet.

 

I see no reason why anyone in the press would be evasive when it comes to talking about MQA. That's weird to me. I just want to know all the facts and help people get all the facts. However it shakes out in the end is cool with me as long as it's based on facts.

 

But this is the problem, a chicken - egg thing, we cannot hear it. Without being able to compare the different file formats against a MQA decoded file, we can't make a judgement. I am not going to buy an Explorer DAC just to listen to some test files. I think we all want the facts, but how/where do we get them?

 

I downloaded some of the files from the 2L site to compare and I am still in the process of comparing CD resolution, MQA and hi-res formats. However, without a MQA DAC I can't get all of the pieces.

[The Computer Audiophile]

But this is the problem, a chicken - egg thing, we cannot hear it. Without being able to compare the different file formats against a MQA decoded file, we can't make a judgement. I am not going to buy an Explorer DAC just to listen to some test files. I think we all want the facts, but how/where do we get them?

 

I downloaded some of the files from the 2L site to compare and I am still in the process of comparing CD resolution, MQA and hi-res formats. However, without a MQA DAC I can't get all of the pieces.

I understand frustration without access, but I don't understand vitriol without access (not pointing finger at you). I agree you can't make a judgment if you don't have access to the material and you can't get your ears on a good MQA DAC. But, that's not the kind of comments I'm trying to counter. Your facts are indisputable. You can't hear it how you want. No problem. Others who either can't or won't hear it are speculating and just pulling stuff out of thin air in support of their anti-MQA cause. Who knows, they could be hurting themselves because they are arguing without all the facts.

 

With respect to getting more facts, I'm not sure MQA (the company) wants any more facts available. Bob Stuart has answered many questions in many interviews. In fact I don't think there's a question he hasn't been asked. His answers to those questions purposely leave out information that some people want. I believe he could be more forthcoming if he wanted to be. Thus, my belief MQA doesn't want any more information released. Perhaps the company is only looking to impress the press and major labels (it's true customer).

[crenca]

Yes. Hear it and understand it before screaming "fraud" all over the Internet.

 

I see no reason why anyone in the press would be evasive when it comes to talking about MQA. That's weird to me. I just want to know all the facts and help people get all the facts. However it shakes out in the end is cool with me as long as it's based on facts.

 

Chris,

 

I seems to me you want something more than a simple "fair shake" based solely on SQ. Yes, of course SQ is important and of course it is an important aspect (THE raison d'etre of MQA...possibly... ). However, the problem I have is that even though I have not "heard" MQA (as most people - even including all the ones who have heard it at shows) like anything else there are other important aspects (e.g. what you have been calling MQA's "business model"). We can and should judge and consider these things, and a person can even come to quite harsh judgement (perhaps even calling it "fraud") based on what we already know. I have been arguing the DRM/format side (and I don't think "fraud" is too strong a word at all when it comes to the obfuscation around this aspect), others have pointed out Meridian/Bob's history with licensed/proprietary software in Audio, still others are pointing to the known technical aspects (no, they are not merely speculating because there is some things we know - though there is this aspect to).

 

In essence, you are speaking to the choir about "facts", but "facts" is exactly what MQA has either withheld or simply lied about so far. The "screaming" on the Internet about this is a good thing and does not indicate something wrong with the Internet and the audiophile community represented - though this is *exactly* what the editors over @ Stereophile and elsewhere are claiming. On the contrary, the fact that this "fraud" is being revealed in such a way indicates a fundamental problem/weakness with the "audiophile press" and its ways of doing business/reporting on the industry.

 

What MQA has revealed about the industry and those who report on it says to me that a some sort of "audiophile consumers union" is sorely needed. Blogs such as yours actually serve that role to some extant...

[crenca]

believe he could be more forthcoming if he wanted to be. Thus, my belief MQA doesn't want any more information released. Perhaps the company is only looking to impress the press and major labels (it's true customer).

 

This...and in this case those two interest groups ("press" and "labels") have interests that are decidedly not the interests of most consumers, thus the "vitriol" which is of course quite natural when someone is trying to pick your pocket or otherwise push you into a corner against your will.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris,

 

I seems to me you want something more than a simple "fair shake" based solely on SQ. Yes, of course SQ is important and of course it is an important aspect (THE raison d'etre of MQA...possibly... ). However, the problem I have is that even though I have not "heard" MQA (as most people - even including all the ones who have heard it at shows) like anything else there are other important aspects (e.g. what you have been calling MQA's "business model"). We can and should judge and consider these things, and a person can even come to quite harsh judgement (perhaps even calling it "fraud") based on what we already know. I have been arguing the DRM/format side (and I don't think "fraud" is too strong a word at all when it comes to the obfuscation around this aspect), others have pointed out Meridian/Bob's history with licensed/proprietary software in Audio, still others are pointing to the known technical aspects (no, they are not merely speculating because there is some things we know - though there is this aspect to).

 

In essence, you are speaking to the choir about "facts", but "facts" is exactly what MQA has either withheld or simply lied about so far. The "screaming" on the Internet about this is a good thing and does not indicate something wrong with the Internet and the audiophile community represented - though this is *exactly* what the editors over @ Stereophile and elsewhere are claiming. On the contrary, the fact that this "fraud" is being revealed in such a way indicates a fundamental problem/weakness with the "audiophile press" and its ways of doing business/reporting on the industry.

 

What MQA has revealed about the industry and those who report on it says to me that a some sort of "audiophile consumers union" is sorely needed. Blogs such as yours actually serve that role to some extant...

That must be our miscommunication then. I want a fair shake for all products based on all factors. Sound quality only get you so far. I will try to be clearer when commenting.

 

Comments and speculation about the MQA business model are good. Especially if the company appears to be hiding something etc... Either tell us or we'll draw our own conclusions.

 

The comments calling the technology a fraud and much worse than format ABC, from people either trying to reverse engineer the product or just plain speculating without any details, are what doesn't help anyone.

 

Wouldn't you be disappointed if MQA failed because of unfounded claims, and it turned out to be a great thing for everybody?

 

Wouldn't you be disappointed if MQA succeeded because of unfounded claims, and it turned out to be a terrible fraud?

 

The only way to stop either from happening is facts.

 

Nothing is wrong with the Internet or our community, I hope I didn't insinuate the opposite. We as a community should be seeking facts, not making up our own in the absence of facts from the company.

 

You've concluded MQA is a fraud, based on your statements above. That's totally fine with me. Can you elaborate on what lead you to this conclusion? I'm being 100% serious. Maybe it will help others decide one way or the other.

 

Thanks @crenca

[The Computer Audiophile]

This...and in this case those two interest groups ("press" and "labels") have interests that are decidedly not the interests of most consumers, thus the "vitriol" which is of course quite natural when someone is trying to pick your pocket or otherwise push you into a corner against your will.

Interesting point of view. From my perspective, consumers must be the #1 focus of my business. Without consumers reading CA, it ceases to exist. Period. Pandering to manufacturers or MQA will only piss off consumers and lead the end of the road.

[mansr]

Yes. Hear it and understand it before screaming "fraud" all over the Internet.

 

The fact that doing either is bloody impossible screams fraud to me.