MQA is Vaporware

[Confused]

What Hifi seem to be very pleased with this outcome:

 

https://www.whathifi.com/news/mqa-has-been-saved-from-administration

[watts]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where do you see people getting MQA encoded content, now that Tidal is getting rid of it?

according to this writer's opinion, they will attempt to mend the situation with Tidal, or try Spotify (?) 

 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/lenbrook-acquires-mqa/

 

 

[watts]

8 hours ago, Indydan said:

BOYCOTT LENBROOK AND ALL OF ITS PRODUCTS! 

 

Already have- Happy to say never owned a Lenbrook product, don't plan to, and have never owned a product that paid for an MQA licence (my exaSound DAC is an older one) and once Qobuz got into our country I was ecstatic to drop Tidal and it's MQA (not to mention the rap bias) and had no further qualm with this issue. 

 

Interestingly, just filled out a survey via email yesterday for Qobuz asking me questions around preferences for"mainstream" music, hi-res music preferences, so I use a 3rd party (Roon) or not, and other "am I satisfied" questions. I don't know if this was after this MQA announcement or not, or did it have to do with Tidal dropping MQA? Didn't know until I read some of the latest posts in this thread.

[watts]

Curious question, for someone who might have some insight into the financial side, did Bob Stuart make any money off of this project? 

[loop7]

I would be surprised if Spotify finally licensed MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, loop7 said:

I would be surprised if Spotify finally licensed MQA.

Me too. I know they watched the performance of the MQA executives at RMAF on YouTube.

[Shadorne]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This was my guess after reading the mQa documents a couple months ago, but I couldn’t figure out why. I still can’t figure out why, but that’s ok. 
 

 

 

 

PICKERING, ONTARIO, CANADA, SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 – Lenbrook Corp., a diversified, privately-owned Canadian enterprise with activities in brand development, technology, and distribution in both residential and commercial audio and the communication sectors, has acquired the assets of MQA, a UK-based industry leader in high-resolution audio encoding.

This acquisition enriches Lenbrook's intellectual property portfolio with an assortment of significant patents and introduces two prominent audio codecs – MQA and SCL6. This merger further solidifies Lenbrook's commitment to excellence and innovation in the evolving landscape of audio technology.

It was probably bought for the tax losses.

 

In essence, you buy another company for their tax losses. For example, the acquisition of a company with $10 million in losses will provide a tax shelter for $2 million to the acquirer who can apply prior years losses against future profit. 

It is a common trick. If the acquirer is normally profitable and pays $1 million for the dead zombie company the  acquirer is able to offset $2 million of future taxes. The math is simple, you spend $1 million today to save $2 million over next  few years…

 

it is often done as a reverse takeover…
 

 

[Archimago]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If I had to guess why Lenbrook purchased MQA, I’d say it will develop its own ecosystem for wireless speakers and headphones using SCL6. Headphones is an uphill battle because phones won’t support it. Home theater is an easy one because its processors and speakers can contain transmitter and receiver for SCL6. If they use the upper bandwidth limit of the tech, it could be cool. 
 

DTS Play-Fi just announced something similar. 

https://restechtoday.com/dts-play-fi-adds-12-channel-wireless-home-theater-audio-expansion/

 

But at least the new DTS Play-Fi is multichannel over high data rate WiFi, not yet another lossy 2-channel codec which is what SCL6 is. Plus SCL6 is all software so we're basically looking at a competitor of Sony's LDAC with that "hi-res audio" badge at Bluetooth bitrates. Playing in the UWB high-bitrate space, I'm not sure what's the point of these contortions transmitting scalable lossy SCL6 when it should be able to handle lossless compressed 16/44.1 or 24/48 or even 24/96?

 

I suspect @Shadorne is right. It's a business deal with potential tax benefits. PSB/Sonical/MQA already announced their partnership with presumably products in the works with SCL6 about a month before MQA declared their financial troubles. I guess they own the IP now and let's see how far SCL6 goes. A bit of time between now and Q1-2024 with their SCL6 product. Let's see if this stuff even sees the light of day!

 

SCL6 is different from the MQA codec. Would be amazing to see them try to revitalize the MQA codec and all its "origami" beauty. :-)

[Archimago]

13 hours ago, Fx Studio said:

" MQA has attracted many critics since the technology's release several years ago. Lenbrook's FAQ addresses the controversy head-on. "We have always found it unfortunate that the core attributes of what we understand MQA to be seemed lost in a distorted narrative around some of the technical nuances in its implementation," the FAQ states. "In this fray, the artist-first origins of MQA and the sheer technical elegance of its handling of the entire audio signal path got muddled. We are excited to have the opportunity to clarify the narrative and build on the technology in ways that can better demonstrate their true value, while also promoting innovation in a specialty and premium audio industry that thrives on healthy discussion, subjective views, and debate. "

 

Obviously, congratulating yourselves on burying MQA might have been a little premature..   😜

 

No worries Fx. MQA codec is toast. Let's see if SCL6/"MQAir" sees the light of day. After that, at some point in 2024 maybe, we'll see if anybody cares other than apparently Stereophile. Fascinating to see Atkinson's comment. 😃

 

Notice the de-emphasis of the MQA codec in WhatHiFi - it's about saving SCL6/"MQair". So far TAS seems to be missing in on the party tonight. Maybe we'll see an article in celebration soon!

[Allan F]

12 hours ago, Spike Kasperak said:

This "news" is of little or no consequence. NAD is a MidFi company pretending to be sota.

 

A rather extreme rhetorical comment that is both unfair and inaccurate to summarily apply to all of NAD's products. In particular, NAD's current offerings that incorporate sota Purifi based Class D amplification modules are definitely considered to be HiFi by many knowledgeable audiophiles and reviewers.

[Fx Studio]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where do you see people getting MQA encoded content, now that Tidal is getting rid of it?

 

They can be bought here:

https://shop.2l.no/collections/all/hd-file-distribution

https://www.highresaudio.com/en/mqasm

https://www.prostudiomasters.com/featured/format/mqa

https://eudorarecords.com/catalogue/

https://bluecoastmusic.com/store

https://www.hdtracks.com/

 

And the playlists can be downloaded: https://www.androidbrick.com/how-to-download-tidal-mqa-albums/

[firedog]

I suspect the idea about them using the SCL6 in their own products ecosystem may be correct.

 

Darko speculates that the move only makes sense if they plan on setting up their own streaming service for MQA.

https://darko.audio/2023/09/my-crazy-theory-about-why-lenbrook-bought-mqa/

 

I don't really see that happening: it will be very costly and won't make them money, just as it didn't till now for MQA and Tidal. 

I also think that as a hi-fi company, they won't be able to convince their competitors to work with them and give them proprietary info about their products. 

I even assume some companies will now take MQA OUT of their products for just this reason. 

[firedog]

13 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

JA1 and Serinus will shill for MQA until they die. They just cannot help themselves!

It's amazing at this point that JA1 still feels compelled to defend calling MQA lossless. He, of all people, should know it doesn't fit. 

[firedog]

13 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

JA1 and Serinus will shill for MQA until they die. They just cannot help themselves!

It's amazing at this point that JA1 still feels compelled to defend calling MQA lossless. He, of all people, should know it doesn't fit. 

[Fx Studio]

19 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This was my guess after reading the mQa documents a couple months ago, but I couldn’t figure out why. I still can’t figure out why, but that’s ok. 
 

 

 

 

PICKERING, ONTARIO, CANADA, SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 – Lenbrook Corp., a diversified, privately-owned Canadian enterprise with activities in brand development, technology, and distribution in both residential and commercial audio and the communication sectors, has acquired the assets of MQA, a UK-based industry leader in high-resolution audio encoding.

 

 

The info from the press release indicates that they believe in MQA and fully back it as a format.

Of course there may be secondary reasons that we can guess at, but this is the primary reason given at this stage.

 

"Lenbrook said its primary objective in this acquisition was to provide certainty for business and technical developments that were underway prior to MQA’s administration."

 

"We are excited to have the opportunity to clarify the narrative and build on the technology in ways that can better demonstrate [MQA's] true value"

[GregWormald]

31 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

The info from the press release indicates that they believe in MQA and fully back it as a format.

Of course there may be secondary reasons that we can guess at, but this is the primary reason given at this stage.

 

"Lenbrook said its primary objective in this acquisition was to provide certainty for business and technical developments that were underway prior to MQA’s administration."

 

"We are excited to have the opportunity to clarify the narrative and build on the technology in ways that can better demonstrate [MQA's] true value"

Be very careful when reading that you don't confuse MQA (the company) with MQA (the process).

[Currawong]

I posted this in reply to the Stereophile article. Either something glitched on my end, or it has been moderated in some way, as I can't see it. With some further thought, the days of trying to take over the music industry with MQA tech are over.  Though I guess the days of reviewers and magazines burning their reputation with MQA are not.

 

Quote

"Lenbrook's position is that anyone doing work to advance audio processing and sound reproduction is positively contributing to the vibrancy of the industry."

And thus, anyone trying to regress the industry, such as MQA did, trying to intercede between music production and listening, producing lossy, fake masters which include DRM and a new purchase to decode, is contributing negatively.

 

Quote

"The vitriol directed towards innovations like MQA and what it means to those creating, delivering, and listening to better sounding music has always disappointed us when the technology and the patents that underpin it are so novel."

Fake innovation, existing only to make money, based on dishonest and false ideals will generate vitriol amongst consumers when it is revealed. The MQA group LIED about near everything their technology did, and can do. 

 

Quote

"We prefer instead to build off the fact that many influential content creators and reviewers absolutely understood that MQA was not really about 1s and 0s. We also believe that differing opinions is what makes this industry healthy—for example, we do not believe in one way to design a speaker and carefully approach product development in ways that offer differentiation and respect for individual listening preferences. A specialty hi-fi industry where there is no debate or new ideas would be commoditized far too quickly."

Nobody has an issues with different ideas or opinions. It's when a company attempts to hijack ALL music production with technology that both technically, and audibly degrades music, based upon falsehoods, that it stops becoming about just opinions.

 

Quote

"Lenbrook affirms that MQA "was born of a vision that a group of like-minded musicians and audio engineers had to give musicians the tools they needed to capture their works in high resolution . . . We have listened extensively to MQA content and believe in the results of what we actually hear."

Such as all the batch-processed TIDAL files that, in many cases, degraded classical and jazz music? A lot of people listened too, but not just to "white glove"-treated music which was rigged to impress people at carefully controlled listening sessions.

 

Quote

"The affirmation of MQA as a vital, high-resolution codec that honors the intent of artists and engineers was echoed by prominent Grammy winning producers and engineers. "

Like the artists and engineers that never commissioned their music to be processed by MQA, yet found MQA versions on TIDAL, basically insulting the extensive efforts they'd made to create their music? 

 

How about all the manufacturers that, in some cases publicly, strongly reject MQA? 

 

Quote

"The press release noted that record labels, artists, and producers continue to encode and upload new music in MQA to Tidal daily. "We also support consumer choice, and [Tidal's] current 'Max' labelling does not allow consumers to search for content in their preferred format easily and that is where our reservations about it come in." Recent changes to the Tidal app blurred this distinction, but Tidal appears to be stepping back this change."

MQA didn't support consumer choice when TIDAL removed all non-MQA versions of their music in their catalog in the past! However, TIDAL is a bit player in the music industry. It doesn't even register as even existing amongst heavyweights such as Apple, Spotify, or  Deezer.   If "consumer choice" was really the goal, then why not open source the MQA software so that anyone can create MQA music with it?

[John_Atkinson]

59 minutes ago, Currawong said:

I posted this in reply to the Stereophile article. Either something glitched on my end, or it has been moderated in some way, as I can't see it. 

It is definitely posted this morning.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

It's amazing at this point that JA1 still feels compelled to defend calling MQA lossless.

I didn't say "lossless." With all due respect, I think you didn't comprehend what I wrote: "While it is true that the bits in an MQA-encoded file are not the same as those in the original hi-rez file, this does not necessarily mean that the format is 'lossy' in the manner that MP3, AAC, etc are lossy."

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[John Dyson]

6 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

I didn't say "lossless." With all due respect, I think you didn't comprehend what I wrote: "While it is true that the bits in an MQA-encoded file are not the same as those in the original hi-rez file, this does not necessarily mean that the format is 'lossy' in the manner that MP3, AAC, etc are lossy."

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

You, being an important person in 'audiophiledom', could do some real good.   What about that terrible travesty that was originally called 'digital sound' in the 1980's?   It is still being done, and I do have a method that approximately indicates it's use.  Pushing the distributors to quit doing the processing would do REAL GOOD.   After that, the damage caused by MQA would truely be insignificant.   I have heard excuses like 'good enough', but it was only 'good enough' in the 1980s, perhaps 1990s with the equipment of that era.  Nowadays, especially with the newer, extremely clean recordings, it is a travesty.  (Yes, I can detect it on otherwise digital recordings.)

 

I have been trying desperately to undo the damage, with slow progress...   It is a b*tch to undo, but the decoder shouldn't even have to exist to get an ACTUAL replica of the studio mix.   Even normal compression is less intrusive to the mush that is normally distributed.  (I have some simply compressed versions of recordings, and the approx equivalent 'digital sound', and the simple mastering/compression sounds more clean.)   Without compression at all -- nirvana!!!

 

John

 

[botrytis]

WOW - talk about a double speak quote, Mr. Atkinson. Lossy is lossy, that is plain and simple. Either it is lossy or it isn't. Can one get back the information MQA removes? If not, it is lossy by definition.

 

Trying to hedge your bets there.

[John Dyson]

13 minutes ago, botrytis said:

WOW - talk about a double speak quote, Mr. Atkinson. Lossy is lossy, that is plain and simple. Either it is lossy or it isn't. Can one get back the information MQA removes? If not, it is lossy by definition.

 

Trying to hedge your bets there.

Agreed,

 

At least there is information correlated with the original signal under normal dither (if done correctly.)   Replacing the bits with pseudo random 'stuff', however useful the bits might be, is indeed lossy.   He IS right about it not being lossy IN THE SAME WAY as mp3, but agreed MQA IS LOSSY.

 

For me, this whole thing about MQA being lossy is ALMOST 'how many angels' type thing, but is still a matter of integrity, even if tinnitus and variable blood flow drives old people like me crazy.   Just because I cannot hear it doesn't mean that the damage doesn't manifest as subjective problems in others.

 

As a matter of integrity, one should say:  MQA is lossy.

 

John

 

ADD-ON:   I tend to be much more interested in 3kHz information than >20kHz, and there is lower freq information in properly dithered recordings.   When the dithered part of the signal is 'modified', that lower freq information is lost.   Similar to cell systems being able to process signals below noise floor.   I guess a new 14bit signal could be the result of 'redithering' the 16bit signal, but I don't know how well that might work.

 

 

 

[Fx Studio]

16 minutes ago, botrytis said:

WOW - talk about a double speak quote, Mr. Atkinson. Lossy is lossy, that is plain and simple. Either it is lossy or it isn't. Can one get back the information MQA removes? If not, it is lossy by definition.

 

Trying to hedge your bets there.

 

ALL formats are lossy including FLAC because of the lack of time smearing correction.

 

[John Dyson]

Just now, Fx Studio said:

 

ALL formats are lossy including FLAC because of the lack of time smearing correction.

 

The only time smearing is in the A/D, which is minimal compared to analog tape.   The bits in the recording are maintained, and ANY correction done to the original 24bit .wav file (I use FP myself) can be done to the decoded FLAC.  ALL of these are much less than the processing *normally* done to commodity recordings, and THAT processing is very difficult to remove.   Tape variations can be partially mitigated if there is a bias signal left over (similar to certain old VCR schemes.)

 

John

 

[Skirmash]

4 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

ALL formats are lossy including FLAC because of the lack of time smearing correction.

 

This is clearly nonsense. The digital audio data that goes in is completely reconstructed on the way out.