MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

Hi Fyper - You raise some really good points. However, I get a sense of entitlement from the wording of your comments. I could be totally wrong. You seem entitled to have exactly what you want, despite the fact that the owner of the content may not want to sell you what you want. Again, I could be wrong and I mean no disrespect.

 

There appears to be some disconnect between supply and demand. The consumers are unhappy because what they want to buy isn't for sale, and the producers are upset that nobody wants to buy what they are selling. Someone needs to adjust.

 

The movie business has already done much of what you say, yet I've never seen anyone complain. Dolby and DTS put their magic sauce into movies and if you don't have a decoder, you're out of luck. Plus, I don't believe I've ever heard of a lossless movie being released. No matter the format, even 4K Blu-ray, is lossy. We get what the owner of the content whats to deliver. This doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it, but I believe people seem a bit entitled to have what they want.

 

Comparing Dolby and DTS to MQA isn't fair for several reasons:

 

1. Something of the kind was necessary to deliver surround sound within the limited bitrate of DVD.

2. Dolby Digital and DTS are actually open specifications, albeit covered by patents.

3. Nobody ever limited what you could do with a Dolby or DTS decoder, i.e. there are no obstacles to applying DSP (room correction etc.) to the decoded output.

 

MQA is fundamentally different in all three respects.

[The Computer Audiophile]

There appears to be some disconnect between supply and demand. The consumers are unhappy because what they want to buy isn't for sale, and the producers are upset that nobody wants to buy what they are selling. Someone needs to adjust.

Comparing Dolby and DTS to MQA isn't fair for several reasons:

 

1. Something of the kind was necessary to deliver surround sound within the limited bitrate of DVD.

2. Dolby Digital and DTS are actually open specifications, albeit covered by patents.

3. Nobody ever limited what you could do with a Dolby or DTS decoder, i.e. there are no obstacles to applying DSP (room correction etc.) to the decoded output.

 

MQA is fundamentally different in all three respects.

 

Hi Mansr - Thanks for the reply. All good points.

 

 

The supply and demand issue is interesting to say the least. Can you explain your point a bit more? What consumers want versus what's being sold.

 

With respect to Dolby and DTS, I look at it from a consumer's perspective and in the context of the previous comments. If you don't buy a device with a decoder, you're out of luck.

 

Now that we aren't limited to the bitrate of DVD, should we be arguing against Dolby and DTS, and for the lossless versions of our movies (the crown jewels)?

 

With respect to DSP and MQA, I think most people are misinformed about what's possible. I fully expect to see DSP packages 100% compatible with MQA in the future.

 

 

I'm a consumer as much as everyone else here. I'd love the crown jewels for all the movies I watch and I'd love open source everything. I think the best move is finding an appropriate balance.

[mansr]

Hi Mansr - Thanks for the reply. All good points.

 

 

The supply and demand issue is interesting to say the least. Can you explain your point a bit more? What consumers want versus what's being sold.

 

Consumers want music cheaply and conveniently. The labels are constantly moaning about how little they make off streaming royalties all the while physical media sales are dwindling. They missed the boat with internet delivery in the 90s when Napster and its successors showed how easily and cheaply distribution could happen. The consumers flocked to the thing they wanted, even though it wasn't quite legal. Now the labels are again (although they never quite caught up last time) struggling in the face of shifting consumer behaviour, this time around streaming services.

 

People appear willing to spend roughly the price of one physical album per month on music. When this money goes to a streaming service, it naturally gets spread thinner.

 

I'd like to see a comparison of how the money would flow between on one hand an old-style consumer buying one recently released album per month for 10 years, and on the other hand a modern consumer subscribing to a streaming service for the same amount of money.

 

With respect to Dolby and DTS, I look at it from a consumer's perspective and in the context of the previous comments. If you don't buy a device with a decoder, you're out of luck.

 

Again, that's not fair. You always need a player for the thing you want to play. LPs require a turntable, digital files require a DAC. Few people have a problem with buying new equipment to play a new superior format.

 

The situation with MQA is quite different. Here they are foisting upon us a new format requiring new equipment without delivering any appreciable benefit for the consumer. The currently standard format is lossless PCM, compared to which MQA offers only added restrictions. MQA does not solve any problem for the consumers of music. It does, however, solve the perceived problem for the labels of releasing the "crown jewels" unprotected. By switching to MQA, the labels are offering less and (at least in some cases) charging more. As consumers, we should rightfully be suspicious of the motives behind this push.

 

Now that we aren't limited to the bitrate of DVD, should we be arguing against Dolby and DTS, and for the lossless versions of our movies (the crown jewels)?

 

Many Blu-ray discs have lossless PCM 8-channel audio at silly sample rates. They typically include a DTS track as well for compatibility with old receivers. Lossless video still requires far higher bitrate than is practical to deliver (upwards of 3 Gbps).

 

With respect to DSP and MQA, I think most people are misinformed about what's possible. I fully expect to see DSP packages 100% compatible with MQA in the future.

 

I have a pretty good idea about what's possible. I've reverse engineered quite a bit of it, remember.

[witchdoctor]

They certainly do. But this creates a number of problems for some customers, even the honest ones:

- For quite a few people, listening to music is still about playing files not streaming them. I see no problem with streaming if the other

options still exists. I'd like to have the possibility to own and play music files without an internet connection, is it too much to ask?

 

- MQA may be a very good idea but if I don't buy the MQA gear (hard/soft), I won't be able to listen to anything but lossy streams. I

don't expect to be able to get the MQA magical sound for free, but I certainly do not expect to be punished if I don't pay. As long as a

DRM free lossless alternative exists I don't mind MQA, I might even consider paying extra for it, but if it is forced on me...

 

- Last but not least, if the studios force MQA down to the customer, you know what will happen : this will boost creativity on the illegal

streaming/download side. I bet it won't be long before ways to neutralize the DRM side and reverse engineer the MQA files

into standard PCM are found. And that is before F(ree)MQAC(odec) is created...

 

Today streaming is about to work as a business model with DRM free files, if I were them, I wouldn't take the risk to go through another crisis because they want to control what they can't. But I feel the industry might easily be blinded by the hope of making again the billions they were making back in the day. Well, if it comes to that, I know on which side I'll be.

 

I see your point but I don't think you are in the mainstream market. Tidal is losing money and just cut a deal with Sprint. If Sprint can offer better SQ with Tidal exclusive content and have JZ and Beyonce endorse their service I think that will have a much bigger impact on sales and growth of MQA users than opening an itunes for MQA tracks.

[mav52]

I always look at it, you pay to play. If you don't want to play don't pay. Find an alternative.

[bogi]

Now that we aren't limited to the bitrate of DVD, should we be arguing against Dolby and DTS, and for the lossless versions of our movies (the crown jewels)?

 

I am speeking only for myself ... my sight is far from perfect and I'm sure I am not recognizing so much qualitative levels in picture format than in audio. So at least for me that are different worlds.

 

With respect to DSP and MQA, I think most people are misinformed about what's possible. I fully expect to see DSP packages 100% compatible with MQA in the future.

 

For me possible is that what is currently possible. I don't see a general solution how to apply DSP on fully decoded MQA content - played on usual software player like JRiver or Foobar2000 (and many others) to for example Meridian MQA DAC. Do you know such a solution? Was it anywhere explained, what has a player developer to do to enable DSP on MQA content? Was such a general possibility for software players anywhere mentioned from the side of MQA company?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Many Blu-ray discs have lossless PCM 8-channel audio at silly sample rates. They typically include a DTS track as well for compatibility with old receivers. Lossless video still requires far higher bitrate than is practical to deliver (upwards of 3 Gbps).

 

Sorry to nitpick. The above is not true at all in my experience. Blu-rays typically have a 48k/24-bit 5.1/7.1 channel version in lossless DTS HDMA (or less frequently in Dolby THD). Occasionally, higher sampling rates are used, but not often in BD videos. Higher sampling rates are more prevalent on BD's with audio only.

 

There is almost always an uncompressed LPCM stream in stereo only also included on the BD at the same maximum resolution. That is the one that is there for compatibility with older equipment, not the losslessly compressed Mch ones.

 

I do not see videophiles slashing their wrists en masse because there is no truly lossless video compression. They have realized there are much bigger issues than that, and they have moved on to more important items.

[audiventory]

what is currently possible. I don't see a general solution how to apply DSP on fully decoded MQA content - played on usual software player like JRiver or Foobar2000 (and many others) to for example Meridian MQA DAC. Do you know such a solution? Was it anywhere explained, what has a player developer to do to enable DSP on MQA content? Was such a general possibility for software players anywhere mentioned from the side of MQA company?

 

Read here (question «In addition to hardware products, do you also provide solutions for software applications?»)

MQA | For playback providers

 

If I understand correctly, the decoder provided for streaming services apps only.

If player have status [streaming service app], it can use the decoder and process unpacked audio stuff.

[bogi]

Thanks Yuri. The word streaming does not appear in the answer. No information how much it costs for example for developer of free player to obtain "object code for the MQA technology directly from MQA". I am simply interested what the MQA thing means for the world of free applications.

[mansr]

Thanks Yuri. The word streaming does not appear in the answer. No information how much it costs for example for developer of free player to obtain "object code for the MQA technology directly from MQA". I am simply interested what the MQA thing means for the world of free applications.

The answer to the last question explicitly mentions streaming.

[bogi]

The answer to the last question explicitly mentions streaming.

Thanks, I searched it in the answer Yuri pointed to.

 

The last Q&A is:

 

In addition to hardware products, do you also provide solutions for software applications?

 

 

Yes! For music streaming services - who provide Mobile and PC Apps to their subscribers as part of their service - then software libraries, to integrate the MQA technology into these apps, are available directly from MQA.

I see 2 possibilities:

a) MQA will be used only for streaming but not for downloads ... but I read here on the forum that MQA file downloads are already provided from some sources, although currently it seems to be very limited amount of titles.

b) MQA will be used also for downloads, but "software libraries, to integrate the MQA technology into these apps" will be NOT provided for software players like JRiver, foobar2000, ... (including portable audio players like FiiO, iBasso, Astel&Kern etc.), which play files and don't depend on internet connection.

[Fyper]

Hi Fyper - You raise some really good points. However, I get a sense of entitlement from the wording of your comments. I could be totally wrong. You seem entitled to have exactly what you want, despite the fact that the owner of the content may not want to sell you what you want. Again, I could be wrong and I mean no disrespect.

Hi,

You're right, there is a sense of entitlement in what I say, I was raised in a world where supply is supposed to match market needs. I may be part of a niche market (as we all are here) but I would expect this market to be addressed properly. This is currently the case, I only hope it'll stay like this.

 

The movie business has already done much of what you say, yet I've never seen anyone complain. Dolby and DTS put their magic sauce into movies and if you don't have a decoder, you're out of luck. Plus, I don't believe I've ever heard of a lossless movie being released. No matter the format, even 4K Blu-ray, is lossy. We get what the owner of the content whats to deliver. This doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it, but I believe people seem a bit entitled to have what they want.

You're right again, the movie industry has gone that way, and is probably an example to follow for the music industry. To further compare the 2 we'll have to say that what matters most in the movie industry is video quality, not sound quality. To be sure no-one complains about the video quality, we'd need to go through a Computer Videophile forum :-). I'm pretty sure that our video counterparts are not satisfied about everything...

It will be interesting to see what happens with the pirating of music if MQA becomes the standard. I honestly don't think pirating will even matter. Streaming is way too easy and downloading torrents is a crapshoot. Those who do it will always do it, those who don't won't.

Again, if we look at the movie business, we'll notice that BluRay and HDCP protections along with high BD costs at the beginning have boosted piracy. Then Netflix and the likes took over because that was easier than piracy for a reasonable price.

 

So streaming music is easy and most people won't care about the file format used. But they won't care if it's MP3 or MQA, so why bother with MQA.

For the premium quality streaming that's a different matter and not every audiophile agree as we can see in this thread and others.

As said what bothers me is the fear of not being able to access non MQA files in the future for the future SQ and HD releases. I also would like to be able to apply some convolution to the files for room correction purposes. I like the idea of oversampling them if I want to, or to convert them in DSD, etc.

[Fyper]

[...]b) MQA will be used also for downloads, but "software libraries, to integrate the MQA technology into these apps" will be NOT provided for software players like JRiver, foobar2000, ... (including portable audio players like FiiO, iBasso, Astel&Kern etc.), which play files and don't depend on internet connection.

 

Seems pretty obvious for me although I'm not a specialist at all:

If they allow the current soft/hard DSPs it means that they'll have to feed PCM to these DSPs engines. If they do that, anyone will be able to record MQAed PCM and the whole DRM aspect will be killed.

 

So the only way to allow DSPs with MQA is to license them and make it close to impossible for a normal users to extract PCM in the process. If they could use some kind of HDCP they would, but it would possible only through HDMI or USB connections.

I wonder who'll end up paying for thoses MQA licenses...

[jmudrick]

Thanks, I searched it in the answer Yuri pointed to.

 

The last Q&A is:

 

 

I see 2 possibilities:

a) MQA will be used only for streaming but not for downloads ... but I read here on the forum that MQA file downloads are already provided from some sources, although currently it seems to be very limited amount of titles.

b) MQA will be used also for downloads, but "software libraries, to integrate the MQA technology into these apps" will be NOT provided for software players like JRiver, foobar2000, ... (including portable audio players like FiiO, iBasso, Astel&Kern etc.), which play files and don't depend on internet connection.

Onkyo and Pioneer portable players already support MQA.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Rt66indierock]

Bob Ludwig on his Gateway Mastering Studios Facebook page says there are 6,000 MQA songs on TIDAL January 24, 2017.

 

Pal Bratlund (former TIDAL as of September 2016) posts there are 6,000 albums on TIDAL. “But TIDAL may not share the view that you need to see the sample rate as long as it’s the original and that it sounds great.”

 

My question would be does this mean the albums they don’t share the sample rate are not hi-res?

 

When Bob’s post was copied to the MQA Facebook page Alex Gorouvein shared his list.

 

I would like to thank Alex for posting a list of the 1,262 albums MQA available on Tidal January 25, 2017. Roon gets my thanks too for its export capability to create his spreadsheet.

 

As of January 25, 2017 I believe Alex is correct and TIDAL needs to add only 8,739 more albums to get over my vaporware number of 10,000 albums.

[Solstice380]

No worries. I was just trying to illustrate why communication is always a bit of a bumpy ride (even - especially, on forums). Your point is taken - we all could do better. However, in reality is is always messy...

 

My entry here is late, I'm back from a biz trip and catching up!

 

Remember, we are all just visitors in each other's universe.

 

It's easy to be misunderstood if ideas are not expressed clearly.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[witchdoctor]

Onkyo and Pioneer portable players already support MQA.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Plus you know Sprint phones will support MQA in the future

[smartin]

Bob Ludwig on his Gateway Mastering Studios Facebook page says there are 6,000 MQA songs on TIDAL January 24, 2017.

 

Pal Bratlund (former TIDAL as of September 2016) posts there are 6,000 albums on TIDAL. “But TIDAL may not share the view that you need to see the sample rate as long as it’s the original and that it sounds great.”

 

My question would be does this mean the albums they don’t share the sample rate are not hi-res?

 

When Bob’s post was copied to the MQA Facebook page Alex Gorouvein shared his list.

 

I would like to thank Alex for posting a list of the 1,262 albums MQA available on Tidal January 25, 2017. Roon gets my thanks too for its export capability to create his spreadsheet.

 

As of January 25, 2017 I believe Alex is correct and TIDAL needs to add only 8,739 more albums to get over my vaporware number of 10,000 albums.

 

At a scientific conference on GMO's a couple of years ago, inside there was debate over GMO's merits/dangers. In the market, GMO's continued to find their place. Outside the conference a guy had a poster saying it should be GAO (Genetically ALTERED Organisms) instead of GMO. Neither the market, nor the scientists inside the conference, cared.

[Rt66indierock]

At a scientific conference on GMO's a couple of years ago, inside there was debate over GMO's merits/dangers. In the market, GMO's continued to find their place. Outside the conference a guy had a poster saying it should be GAO (Genetically ALTERED Organisms) instead of GMO. Neither the market, nor the scientists inside the conference, cared.

 

S a good teachable moment, I’m not changing the name of MQA I’m saying that until 0.25% of the albums on TIDAL are MQA that the format is vaporware as I defined it in the original post. If you don’t like it I’m fine with that.

 

To your point in the United States 86% of the corn, 93% of the soybean and 90% of the cotton are genetically modified. These are real markets not some audio format with less than 1,500 albums available in a streaming service with a market share of 1% of the paying subscribers. MQA is not finding a place in the market as GMO’s have since I can’t buy MQA downloads in the United States and only TIDAL has it to stream. If it was finding a market wouldn’t all nine of my reference albums be available in MQA? The poorest seller of them is JJ Cale’s Naturally; it had four hits, one by Cale, one by Eric Clapton, one by Lynyrd Skynyrd and one by Waylon Jennings.

 

And as long as Bob Stuart is showing up to the Montreal Audio Engineering Society and discussing Hi-Res Audio I don’t think the format is going anywhere. That is the kind of thing you do if you don’t have better options to promote MQA.

[VenturaRV]

Hi.

 

One thing about MQA format amazes me.

I've downloaded the entire 2L test bench in both MQA (when available) and 24/96k PCM.

 

Neutron Eval, wich does NOT "unfolds" MQA files BUT plays back them normally, is a reproducer that ALWAYS shows sampling rate and bit depth of what it is playing. Well; every file from 2L in 24/96k appears marked as expected. On the other hand, their MQA counterparts appeared (without exception) marked as 24 bits 44,1 kHz files, what is not very usual.

 

I have not a MQA decoder, so I've had to listen to in a quite (I gess) primary way.

SQ was better in 24/96k (not "tremendously" better) than in MQA form, but not having a dedicated decoder my impressions could well be premature.

 

Anyway, and with so much contradictory literature on the matter, my question is:

What is the REAL resolution of MQA files when properly decoded, if there is just a single one?

 

(BTW.: I've made, as an experiment, a few files encoding in FLAC of the original 24/96k, and always the resulting size is SMALLER than its MQA counterparts, with no degradación in SQ at all).

 

VenturaRV

[Fitzcaraldo215]

S a good teachable moment, I’m not changing the name of MQA I’m saying that until 0.25% of the albums on TIDAL are MQA that the format is vaporware as I defined it in the original post. If you don’t like it I’m fine with that.

 

To your point in the United States 86% of the corn, 93% of the soybean and 90% of the cotton are genetically modified. These are real markets not some audio format with less than 1,500 albums available in a streaming service with a market share of 1% of the paying subscribers. MQA is not finding a place in the market as GMO’s have since I can’t buy MQA downloads in the United States and only TIDAL has it to stream. If it was finding a market wouldn’t all nine of my reference albums be available in MQA? The poorest seller of them is JJ Cale’s Naturally; it had four hits, one by Cale, one by Eric Clapton, one by Lynyrd Skynyrd and one by Waylon Jennings.

 

And as long as Bob Stuart is showing up to the Montreal Audio Engineering Society and discussing Hi-Res Audio I don’t think the format is going anywhere. That is the kind of thing you do if you don’t have better options to promote MQA.

 

Gosh, I can't stand the suspense, the anticipation! It is like waiting the required 100 hours of break-in for a new interconnect. Will MQA ever meet @Rt66indierock's newly formulated 0.25% threshold on Tidal or not? Stay tuned. News at 11.

 

And, yup, what a scandal. Bob Stuart actually going to the Montreal AES to discuss hi rez audio. Absolutely, that is a smoking gun clearly marking MQA as dead, dead, dead forever.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi.

 

One thing about MQA format amazes me.

I've downloaded the entire 2L test bench in both MQA (when available) and 24/96k PCM.

 

Neutron Eval, wich does NOT "unfolds" MQA files BUT plays back them normally, is a reproducer that ALWAYS shows sampling rate and bit depth of what it is playing. Well; every file from 2L in 24/96k appears marked as expected. On the other hand, their MQA counterparts appeared (without exception) marked as 24 bits 44,1 kHz files, what is not very usual.

 

I have not a MQA decoder, so I've had to listen to in a quite (I gess) primary way.

SQ was better in 24/96k (not "tremendously" better) than in MQA form, but not having a dedicated decoder my impressions could well be premature.

 

Anyway, and with so much contradictory literature on the matter, my question is:

What is the REAL resolution of MQA files when properly decoded, if there is just a single one?

 

(BTW.: I've made, as an experiment, a few files encoding in FLAC of the original 24/96k, and always the resulting size is SMALLER than its MQA counterparts, with no degradación in SQ at all).

 

VenturaRV

 

There is not a single "real" resolution of MQA files. MQA is just a technology used on audio files that can be any sample rate.

[NOMBEDES]

(EDIT)I wonder who'll end up paying for thoses MQA licenses...

 

 

 

The Mexicans will pay for the MQA Licenses. Please pay attention.

[mansr]

There is not a single "real" resolution of MQA files. MQA is just a technology used on audio files that can be any sample rate.

 

Well, there is the original resolution that went into the encoder (which obviously varies). Then the encoder can be configured to output any power-of-two multiple of 44.1/48 kHz up to the original. The decoder, finally, can output the same rate as the encoded input or any power-of-two multiple thereof up to the original rate. However, decoding ("rendering") beyond twice the encoded rate doesn't actually recover any additional high-frequency content.

[wdw]

...