MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

The fact that MQA requires NDA leaves in the dark the question of DRM and whether you will be able to play non MQA music undamaged.

The MQA limited financial statements indicate in the director's remarks how many NDA's they have signed so far.

[KeenObserver]

" I am not paid or otherwise remunerated by the MQA. "

 

An interesting way of putting it.  Are you being paid by someone providing services for MQA Limited, Meridian, Reinet Investments, or Muse Holdings? Or any of their subsidiaries or principals?

Do you hold stock in any of these companies?

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

So you're saying it's OK since we have the option of becoming criminals.

 

No, I am saying that it would be resisted for the same reasons, and with the same result that Prohibition was so fiercely resisted and supported, albeit on a much smaller scale. Instead of Black Ships from Europe carrying smuggled booze, we would have Black Ships from Asia carrying smuggled DACs. And in the 21st century, VPN's flying all around the globe downloading and streaming music from whatever places it is legal. 

 

It would also be a fantastical over reach for the labels and MQA. The lawyers would have so much fun... 

 

 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Paul, this is an excellent post,  I am here simply expressing an opinion in favor of MQA based on listening sessions of non-MQA and MQA files on my own system.  I am not paid or otherwise remunerated by the MQA.  I just think there is some value to the format both in terms of sound quality and the possibility of getting even more hirez files out of the labels.

 

My "megaphone" in the market is too small to influence a large number of people to be either for MQA or against it.

 

The future of MQA is more likely to be decided by participants in their ecosystem, such as streaming services and automotive firms.

 

One observation, though, is that personal attacks against me are not only unnecessary but take away from any valid points you are making in the argument.

 

I do think the personal attacks are excessive and inappropriate, speaking of all the personal attacks in here against *anyone*. 

 

On the other paw, you are a journalist - and journalists have to have very thick skin indeed. Passion, and all the inner stuff that fuels good work, but still, very thick skin.  

It will be interesting to see your commentary on Chris's slides. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

[Ralf11]

Why not not stop an ensuing problem before it grows in size?

 

Like a tumor...

[gdpr]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

Why not not stop an ensuing problem before it grows in size?

 

Like a tumor...

Exactly what I was thinking at this very moment

Dirk

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

" I am not paid or otherwise remunerated by the MQA. "

 

An interesting way of putting it.  Are you being paid by someone providing services for MQA Limited, Meridian, Reinet Investments, or Muse Holdings? Or any of their subsidiaries or principals?

Do you hold stock in any of these companies?

 

No on all of the above.  I receive no compensation whatsoever.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Lee Scoggins I think the music industry is going to be just fine without MQA.

 

 

U.S. Music Industry Generated $9.8 Billion in 2018, Third Straight Year of Double-Digit Growth: RIAA

 

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8500502/riaa-us-music-industry-2018-revenue-streaming-cds-vinyl-digital-growth

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

No on all of the above.  I receive no compensation whatsoever.

 

So you are an unpaid MQA fanboi/groupie? How’s that working out for you? Rock groupies at least get f*cked by rockstars. 

[Lee Scoggins]

My View on Chris’ Computer Audiophile MQA Seminar at RMAF 2018

 

Here are some notes on the slides in Chris’ presentation that I found to show bias against MQA.  I will comment on select slides using the page numbers embedded in the pdf file.

 

Slide 6:

The “from-to” slide sets up early an anti-MQA theme even before we can discuss the detail on each point.  Then Chris proceeds to present evidence on each and other points that does not include an MQA counterpoint.  This is my biggest beef with the slide deck.  Many quality points and counter-evidence in favor of MQA are ignored in favor of the anti-MQA argument in my opinion.  I will address the most notable points slide by slide.

 

Slide 12:

MQA has presented MRI research that shows humans can perceive time phenomena in incredibly small amounts.  This is one reason that I believe MQA focused on the time smearing aspects so keenly because that will provide the biggest benefit.  My understanding is that this research was sent to Chris and Bob Harley and John Atkinson at the roughly the same time.  So it seems curious that Chris does not mention this research on timing.

 

Slide 14:

Chris mentions that it is not lossless from a standard PCM standpoint but Bob Stuart has admitted that publicly.  But here Chris is ignoring the MQA approach cleverness (imho) and the playback aspects of the file.  The MQA process uses triangular encoding so the bits that are discarded are in an inaudible region.  So the point that those bits don’t represent the music is missing from the slide.  In terms of capturing that music in the “triangle”, the process preserves that bit for bit.   The discarded information is essentially dead space.

 

Further reading:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

Slide 17:

This studio sound slide implies MQA are remixing the master.  In fact, the differences between the master file and MQA are very small.  MQA is applying filters to correct the time smear of ADC.  So there is a misunderstanding here as well about how studios operate.  Work is done on a mixing “console” and that console outputs (at the end of it all) an analog signal.  That analog signal is then converted to digital using and ADC.  All ADCs introduce time smear.  What happens is that MQA filters correct that time smear so that final analog signal is reproduced better in digital.  It’s a different algorithm than the apodizing filters Stuart has creat in the past but addresses some of the same sound phenomena.

 

If you have different tracks or stems that use different ADCs then they can also be corrected by the MQA process  before being mixed together but that’s extra work and not necessary arguably if you can correct the final analog product coming out of the console.

 

Slide 18:

On the Bruno Mars track, Chris is claiming that MQA is putting a “notch” in this track but MQA doesn’t add a notch in its process in this fashion so it’s unclear what happened in this mastering.  This appears to not be a product of the process so it’s up to the chart creator to explain the process and origin of files.

 

Slide 20:

Regarding MQA taking over all other formats.  Any new audio format wants to be accepted widely so the inventors can make money and pay back their investment.  However, this is not any different from PCM or AAC or other innovations.  Why would this MQA ambition be viewed negatively when every format aspires to the same thing?

 

Slide 23:

This again betrays an understanding of the studio process where a “final” analog signal gets converted at the end (discussed above) for distribution.  The MQA filters eliminate the time smear of the final ADC for the finished product.  MQA has now done this so many times that they were able to build a machine learning algorithm to quickly find the ADC signature and then apply the correct filter to eliminate the time smear.   Now on special recordings, MQA uses a so-called “white glove” process to do a fully custom approach.  The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper was white glove.

 

Remember, ADC is done off the mixing board.  Every studio you visit, they come out analog to drive effects.  Manley reverb, etc,. then on to digital and that A to D is what is done.   It’s the final ADC unless real-time, wherever ADC is done.  Stems are can be like each of the 48 channels, mix, fade, EQ.  Again, you could MQA each stem if you wanted.  So the concern from multiple DACs being used in the process is unwarranted as the artist hears that final analog signal.

 

Slides 25-27:

The implication is that MQA does not create size compression that is of value.  However, we have all seen situations at home where bandwidth becomes a problem.  I have fast U-Verse fiber and when my wife and I are on the laptops, watching a 4K movie sometimes stutters.  If you look at streaming services like Qobuz at 24/192, you need 9.2 mbps speeds which you often don’t find when traveling on trips or sitting at home.  I have noticed Qobuz, which I otherwise like, sometime stutters or “hangs” in my home office.  MQA, due to its compression, only needs 2.4 mbps to work so a quarter of the bandwidth.

 

MQA compression is also useful when you want to offload the music to a phone.  A 60-minute 24/192 file needs 4 gigabytes versus around 1 gigabyte in MQA form.  There is a limit to the amount of phone storage you can have and so far none have things on the order of terabytes.  So the advantage here is that you are taking up 1/4 of the space with the MQA file.

 

Slide 29:

This slide shows bias in that it doesn’t mention a critical fact: no DRM files have been issued by MQA or their partners.  It also defines DRM to include even MQA’s desire to create an authentication process, not for nefarious reasons of taking away customer freedom but to make sure if the file is certified MQA then the end consumer is assured they are getting the genuine article.  I think there are two reasons for this:

 

1. (audit) It creates a quality check on the overall file integrity.
2. (marketing) It creates a feature on the hardware that tells the consumer that the file is full MQA authenticated via a light and the thinking is that consumers could desire that light to know they were listening to a better sound experience.

 

It seems that many here conflate authentication with DRM but they are two different things.  And this was the point I brought up in the seminar, if no one is issuing DRM on the music then why do we care?  The consumer is protected from DRM.  Files can be copied and shared.

 

Even when we look at outside evaluation, we see a conclusion there is no DRM.  See the Electronic Frontiers Foundation. And as we saw today, the ASA team studied MQA and did not find MQA had many any exaggerated claims.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/closed-proprietary-felonious-toxic-rainbow-locked-technology

 

Slide 30:

To me this slide ignores economic reality.  Each participant must make money to be interested in investing time and money, whether to release new hirez files which require retrieving masters and running the process or redesigning chip implementation at hardware manufacturers.  As my friend JB says, “people gots to be paid.”

 

Slide 33:

“We no longer matter.”  I think this is true on one level as major corporation will decide the success level of MQA in the near term.  But I also believe that, in the long run, MQA will succeed mostly on how the consumer acts in terms of demand.  Will they pay for a premium tier like Tidal Masters to get MQA quality?  Will they reward device makers by buying MQA-embedded product?  Will they pay for another major streaming service to offer better sound quality?  I don’t have the answers to these questions but it’s got to be perceived by the customer to be of enough value to purchase or participate in.  If that falls flat then record label, streamer, and hardware device manufacturer interest will wane and MQA will fade out.

 

Other general comments:

There is also no mention of the success MQA has had in getting all the major record labels on board, the dozens of hardware manufacturers now including MQA in the process, and success in the mobile and automotive worlds.  If Chris is going to present the financial losses the firm has had as a startup then it’s only fair to objectively present their successes too.  We also don’t have a current set of financial statements so it’s impossible to judge what progress they have had over the past several months.

 

My conclusion is that Chris did not give MQA a chance to present their side of each point in the argument and, more importantly, did not present the MQA counterpoints we have been discussing all year or even include some of the relevant studies that were sent to him and other journalists.  So any person perusing these slides is only seeing half the information needed to make an informed judgment.  Of course, one should also partake in arguably the most essential event of all: that of a good MQA demo so one’s own ears can decide.

[Lee Scoggins]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Lee Scoggins I think the music industry is going to be just fine without MQA.

 

 

U.S. Music Industry Generated $9.8 Billion in 2018, Third Straight Year of Double-Digit Growth: RIAA

 

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8500502/riaa-us-music-industry-2018-revenue-streaming-cds-vinyl-digital-growth

 

Maybe so, but you could say that about any format.  I made no claim on industry profitability.  But keep in mind, this can change rapidly and most of these labels are carrying a heavy debt load, some of which is the result of several buyouts.

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

I do think the personal attacks are excessive and inappropriate, speaking of all the personal attacks in here against *anyone*. 

...

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well thought out, with lots of good points.

 

My thought is that in the unlikely case of MQA being embedded in most devices *and* DRM is universally switched on, someone will put a reverse engineered MQA decoder in front of the device and stream non MQA data to it.  

 

Until enough home brew devices without MQA get out there again. Or a converter to strip out the MQA. And the thriving indie market will flourish even more. 

 

Oh, maybe one of the guys here will become the Al Capone of audiophiles, with MQA being equivalent to Prohibition? Bathtubs full of illegal flash drives, and cement boots for record company execs? 🤪

 

IP encumbered data formats cannot be resisted too strongly. MQA doesn’t provide access to its format without NDA — that’s unacceptable.

 

Since you might not have been following this too closely, it’s significantly @mansr who has published his own reverse engineering (if that’s the proper term) which has enabled a significant degree of technical analysis. 

 

SACD and DVD were IP encumbered and I remember when I couldn’t play the content I purchased on my Mac — thankfully folks like @ted_b and others have allowed us to convert our SACD disks to files on hard drives — and for this reason alone I’ve purchased lots of SACDs. Otherwise I download. 

 

MQA is something we as customers need to resist in the strongest of terms.

 

@The Computer Audiophile was treated in a shockingly rude fashion by a rabid pack of MQA  supporters pounding their fists on tables. @Lee Scoggins has been trying to defend MQA and it’s supporters as nauseum, and frankly the way he is treated is what he has brought about by months of posts. At some point rude behavior begets rude reaction and we are beyond that point. 

 

Just some context. I enjoy having no skin in the game and being able to call it purely as I see it  

[daverich4]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

My View on Chris’ Computer Audiophile MQA Seminar at RMAF 2018

 

Here are some notes on the slides in Chris’ presentation that I found to show bias against MQA.  I will comment on select slides using the page numbers embedded in the pdf file.

 

Slide 6:

The “from-to” slide sets up early an anti-MQA theme even before we can discuss the detail on each point.  Then Chris proceeds to present evidence on each and other points that does not include an MQA counterpoint.  This is my biggest beef with the slide deck.  Many quality points and counter-evidence in favor of MQA are ignored in favor of the anti-MQA argument in my opinion.  I will address the most notable points slide by slide.

 

Slide 12:

MQA has presented MRI research that shows humans can perceive time phenomena in incredibly small amounts.  This is one reason that I believe MQA focused on the time smearing aspects so keenly because that will provide the biggest benefit.  My understanding is that this research was sent to Chris and Bob Harley and John Atkinson at the roughly the same time.  So it seems curious that Chris does not mention this research on timing.

 

Slide 14:

Chris mentions that it is not lossless from a standard PCM standpoint but Bob Stuart has admitted that publicly.  But here Chris is ignoring the MQA approach cleverness (imho) and the playback aspects of the file.  The MQA process uses triangular encoding so the bits that are discarded are in an inaudible region.  So the point that those bits don’t represent the music is missing from the slide.  In terms of capturing that music in the “triangle”, the process preserves that bit for bit.   The discarded information is essentially dead space.

 

Further reading:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

 

Slide 17:

This studio sound slide implies MQA are remixing the master.  In fact, the differences between the master file and MQA are very small.  MQA is applying filters to correct the time smear of ADC.  So there is a misunderstanding here as well about how studios operate.  Work is done on a mixing “console” and that console outputs (at the end of it all) an analog signal.  That analog signal is then converted to digital using and ADC.  All ADCs introduce time smear.  What happens is that MQA filters correct that time smear so that final analog signal is reproduced better in digital.  It’s a different algorithm than the apodizing filters Stuart has creat in the past but addresses some of the same sound phenomena.

 

If you have different tracks or stems that use different ADCs then they can also be corrected by the MQA process  before being mixed together but that’s extra work and not necessary arguably if you can correct the final analog product coming out of the console.

 

Slide 18:

On the Bruno Mars track, Chris is claiming that MQA is putting a “notch” in this track but MQA doesn’t add a notch in its process in this fashion so it’s unclear what happened in this mastering.  This appears to not be a product of the process so it’s up to the chart creator to explain the process and origin of files.

 

Slide 20:

Regarding MQA taking over all other formats.  Any new audio format wants to be accepted widely so the inventors can make money and pay back their investment.  However, this is not any different from PCM or AAC or other innovations.  Why would this MQA ambition be viewed negatively when every format aspires to the same thing?

 

Slide 23:

This again betrays an understanding of the studio process where a “final” analog signal gets converted at the end (discussed above) for distribution.  The MQA filters eliminate the time smear of the final ADC for the finished product.  MQA has now done this so many times that they were able to build a machine learning algorithm to quickly find the ADC signature and then apply the correct filter to eliminate the time smear.   Now on special recordings, MQA uses a so-called “white glove” process to do a fully custom approach.  The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper was white glove.

 

Remember, ADC is done off the mixing board.  Every studio you visit, they come out analog to drive effects.  Manley reverb, etc,. then on to digital and that A to D is what is done.   It’s the final ADC unless real-time, wherever ADC is done.  Stems are can be like each of the 48 channels, mix, fade, EQ.  Again, you could MQA each stem if you wanted.  So the concern from multiple DACs being used in the process is unwarranted as the artist hears that final analog signal.

 

Slides 25-27:

The implication is that MQA does not create size compression that is of value.  However, we have all seen situations at home where bandwidth becomes a problem.  I have fast U-Verse fiber and when my wife and I are on the laptops, watching a 4K movie sometimes stutters.  If you look at streaming services like Qobuz at 24/192, you need 9.2 mbps speeds which you often don’t find when traveling on trips or sitting at home.  I have noticed Qobuz, which I otherwise like, sometime stutters or “hangs” in my home office.  MQA, due to its compression, only needs 2.4 mbps to work so a quarter of the bandwidth.

 

MQA compression is also useful when you want to offload the music to a phone.  A 60-minute 24/192 file needs 4 gigabytes versus around 1 gigabyte in MQA form.  There is a limit to the amount of phone storage you can have and so far none have things on the order of terabytes.  So the advantage here is that you are taking up 1/4 of the space with the MQA file.

 

Slide 29:

This slide shows bias in that it doesn’t mention a critical fact: no DRM files have been issued by MQA or their partners.  It also defines DRM to include even MQA’s desire to create an authentication process, not for nefarious reasons of taking away customer freedom but to make sure if the file is certified MQA then the end consumer is assured they are getting the genuine article.  I think there are two reasons for this:

 

1. (audit) It creates a quality check on the overall file integrity.
2. (marketing) It creates a feature on the hardware that tells the consumer that the file is full MQA authenticated via a light and the thinking is that consumers could desire that light to know they were listening to a better sound experience.

 

It seems that many here conflate authentication with DRM but they are two different things.  And this was the point I brought up in the seminar, if no one is issuing DRM on the music then why do we care?  The consumer is protected from DRM.  Files can be copied and shared.

 

Even when we look at outside evaluation, we see a conclusion there is no DRM.  See the Electronic Frontiers Foundation. And as we saw today, the ASA team studied MQA and did not find MQA had many any exaggerated claims.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/closed-proprietary-felonious-toxic-rainbow-locked-technology

 

Slide 30:

To me this slide ignores economic reality.  Each participant must make money to be interested in investing time and money, whether to release new hirez files which require retrieving masters and running the process or redesigning chip implementation at hardware manufacturers.  As my friend JB says, “people gots to be paid.”

 

Slide 33:

“We no longer matter.”  I think this is true on one level as major corporation will decide the success level of MQA in the near term.  But I also believe that, in the long run, MQA will succeed mostly on how the consumer acts in terms of demand.  Will they pay for a premium tier like Tidal Masters to get MQA quality?  Will they reward device makers by buying MQA-embedded product?  Will they pay for another major streaming service to offer better sound quality?  I don’t have the answers to these questions but it’s got to be perceived by the customer to be of enough value to purchase or participate in.  If that falls flat then record label, streamer, and hardware device manufacturer interest will wane and MQA will fade out.

 

Other general comments:

There is also no mention of the success MQA has had in getting all the major record labels on board, the dozens of hardware manufacturers now including MQA in the process, and success in the mobile and automotive worlds.  If Chris is going to present the financial losses the firm has had as a startup then it’s only fair to objectively present their successes too.  We also don’t have a current set of financial statements so it’s impossible to judge what progress they have had over the past several months.

 

My conclusion is that Chris did not give MQA a chance to present their side of each point in the argument and, more importantly, did not present the MQA counterpoints we have been discussing all year or even include some of the relevant studies that were sent to him and other journalists.  So any person perusing these slides is only seeing half the information needed to make an informed judgment.  Of course, one should also partake in arguably the most essential event of all: that of a good MQA demo so one’s own ears can decide.

 

Jeez, I hope you have your flameproof suit on cuz hellfire is comin’ your way. You do know where you’re posting, right?

[asdf1000]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Lee Scoggins I think the music industry is going to be just fine without MQA.

 

 

U.S. Music Industry Generated $9.8 Billion in 2018, Third Straight Year of Double-Digit Growth: RIAA

 

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8500502/riaa-us-music-industry-2018-revenue-streaming-cds-vinyl-digital-growth

 

True. Below is probably the only good news Bob sees in today's reports (if DRM is part of the record labels' future plans). See highlighted part below, by RIAA's CEO:

 

 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/streaming-services-push-music-business-highest-revenue-decade-n977751

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Em2016 said:

 

True. Below is probably the only good news Bob sees in today's reports (if DRM is part of the record label's future plans). See highlighted part below, by RIAA's CEO:

 

Wow, what a joke. Stream-ripping! Recording audio in real time is such a joke. Just like movie studios who go after people using camcorders in movie theaters. The people buying those movies wouldn't have paid anyway. The people stream-ripping aren't paying anyway. The people buying from the stream-rippers aren't paying full price anyway. 

 

Get over it people.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

...

 

IP encumbered data formats cannot be resisted too strongly. MQA doesn’t provide access to its format without NDA — that’s unacceptable.

 

Since you might not have been following this too closely, it’s significantly @mansr who has published his own reverse engineering (if that’s the proper term) which has enabled a significant degree of technical analysis. 

 

SACD and DVD were IP encumbered and I remember when I couldn’t play the content I purchased on my Mac — thankfully folks like @ted_b and others have allowed us to convert our SACD disks to files on hard drives — and for this reason alone I’ve purchased lots of SACDs. Otherwise I download. 

 

MQA is something we as customers need to resist in the strongest of terms.

 

@The Computer Audiophile was treated in a shockingly rude fashion by a rabid pack of MQA  supporters pounding their fists on tables. @Lee Scoggins has been trying to defend MQA and it’s supporters as nauseum, and frankly the way he is treated is what he has brought about by months of posts. At some point rude behavior begets rude reaction and we are beyond that point. 

 

Just some context. I enjoy having no skin in the game and being able to call it purely as I see it  

 

False, the desktop pounding was done solely by Derek. No one else pounded the desks.

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

My conclusion is that Chris did not give MQA a chance to present their side of each point in the argument and, more importantly, did not present the MQA counterpoints we have been discussing all year or even include some of the relevant studies that were sent to him and other journalists.

 

My memory may be failing me here but wasn't MQA presented with an opportunity to review these slides before Chris's presentation? 

[Lee Scoggins]

9 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Jeez, I hope you have your flameproof suit on cuz hellfire is comin’ your way. You do know where you’re posting, right?

 

I commissioned a new brand of Kevlar for the occasion.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

My memory may be failing here but wasn't MQA presented with an opportunity to review these slides before Chris's presentation? 

 

Not as far as I know.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

True. Below is probably the only good news Bob sees in today's reports (if DRM is part of the record labels' future plans). See highlighted part below, by RIAA's CEO:

 

 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/streaming-services-push-music-business-highest-revenue-decade-n977751

 

Agreed.  We have talked about the need to pay artists more under streaming.  The MQA team claims that paying for a premium tier service like MQA is one possible way to do that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

My View on Chris’ Computer Audiophile MQA Seminar at RMAF 2018

 

Here are some notes on the slides in Chris’ presentation that I found to show bias against MQA.  I will comment on select slides using the page numbers embedded in the pdf file.

 

Slide 6:

The “from-to” slide sets up early an anti-MQA theme even before we can discuss the detail on each point.  Then Chris proceeds to present evidence on each and other points that does not include an MQA counterpoint.  This is my biggest beef with the slide deck.  Many quality points and counter-evidence in favor of MQA are ignored in favor of the anti-MQA argument in my opinion.  I will address the most notable points slide by slide.

 

Slide 12:

MQA has presented MRI research that shows humans can perceive time phenomena in incredibly small amounts.  This is one reason that I believe MQA focused on the time smearing aspects so keenly because that will provide the biggest benefit.  My understanding is that this research was sent to Chris and Bob Harley and John Atkinson at the roughly the same time.  So it seems curious that Chris does not mention this research on timing.

 

Slide 14:

Chris mentions that it is not lossless from a standard PCM standpoint but Bob Stuart has admitted that publicly.  But here Chris is ignoring the MQA approach cleverness (imho) and the playback aspects of the file.  The MQA process uses triangular encoding so the bits that are discarded are in an inaudible region.  So the point that those bits don’t represent the music is missing from the slide.  In terms of capturing that music in the “triangle”, the process preserves that bit for bit.   The discarded information is essentially dead space.

 

Further reading:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

Slide 17:

This studio sound slide implies MQA are remixing the master.  In fact, the differences between the master file and MQA are very small.  MQA is applying filters to correct the time smear of ADC.  So there is a misunderstanding here as well about how studios operate.  Work is done on a mixing “console” and that console outputs (at the end of it all) an analog signal.  That analog signal is then converted to digital using and ADC.  All ADCs introduce time smear.  What happens is that MQA filters correct that time smear so that final analog signal is reproduced better in digital.  It’s a different algorithm than the apodizing filters Stuart has creat in the past but addresses some of the same sound phenomena.

 

If you have different tracks or stems that use different ADCs then they can also be corrected by the MQA process  before being mixed together but that’s extra work and not necessary arguably if you can correct the final analog product coming out of the console.

 

Slide 18:

On the Bruno Mars track, Chris is claiming that MQA is putting a “notch” in this track but MQA doesn’t add a notch in its process in this fashion so it’s unclear what happened in this mastering.  This appears to not be a product of the process so it’s up to the chart creator to explain the process and origin of files.

 

Slide 20:

Regarding MQA taking over all other formats.  Any new audio format wants to be accepted widely so the inventors can make money and pay back their investment.  However, this is not any different from PCM or AAC or other innovations.  Why would this MQA ambition be viewed negatively when every format aspires to the same thing?

 

Slide 23:

This again betrays an understanding of the studio process where a “final” analog signal gets converted at the end (discussed above) for distribution.  The MQA filters eliminate the time smear of the final ADC for the finished product.  MQA has now done this so many times that they were able to build a machine learning algorithm to quickly find the ADC signature and then apply the correct filter to eliminate the time smear.   Now on special recordings, MQA uses a so-called “white glove” process to do a fully custom approach.  The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper was white glove.

 

Remember, ADC is done off the mixing board.  Every studio you visit, they come out analog to drive effects.  Manley reverb, etc,. then on to digital and that A to D is what is done.   It’s the final ADC unless real-time, wherever ADC is done.  Stems are can be like each of the 48 channels, mix, fade, EQ.  Again, you could MQA each stem if you wanted.  So the concern from multiple DACs being used in the process is unwarranted as the artist hears that final analog signal.

 

Slides 25-27:

The implication is that MQA does not create size compression that is of value.  However, we have all seen situations at home where bandwidth becomes a problem.  I have fast U-Verse fiber and when my wife and I are on the laptops, watching a 4K movie sometimes stutters.  If you look at streaming services like Qobuz at 24/192, you need 9.2 mbps speeds which you often don’t find when traveling on trips or sitting at home.  I have noticed Qobuz, which I otherwise like, sometime stutters or “hangs” in my home office.  MQA, due to its compression, only needs 2.4 mbps to work so a quarter of the bandwidth.

 

MQA compression is also useful when you want to offload the music to a phone.  A 60-minute 24/192 file needs 4 gigabytes versus around 1 gigabyte in MQA form.  There is a limit to the amount of phone storage you can have and so far none have things on the order of terabytes.  So the advantage here is that you are taking up 1/4 of the space with the MQA file.

 

Slide 29:

This slide shows bias in that it doesn’t mention a critical fact: no DRM files have been issued by MQA or their partners.  It also defines DRM to include even MQA’s desire to create an authentication process, not for nefarious reasons of taking away customer freedom but to make sure if the file is certified MQA then the end consumer is assured they are getting the genuine article.  I think there are two reasons for this:

 

1. (audit) It creates a quality check on the overall file integrity.
2. (marketing) It creates a feature on the hardware that tells the consumer that the file is full MQA authenticated via a light and the thinking is that consumers could desire that light to know they were listening to a better sound experience.

 

It seems that many here conflate authentication with DRM but they are two different things.  And this was the point I brought up in the seminar, if no one is issuing DRM on the music then why do we care?  The consumer is protected from DRM.  Files can be copied and shared.

 

Even when we look at outside evaluation, we see a conclusion there is no DRM.  See the Electronic Frontiers Foundation. And as we saw today, the ASA team studied MQA and did not find MQA had many any exaggerated claims.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/closed-proprietary-felonious-toxic-rainbow-locked-technology

 

Slide 30:

To me this slide ignores economic reality.  Each participant must make money to be interested in investing time and money, whether to release new hirez files which require retrieving masters and running the process or redesigning chip implementation at hardware manufacturers.  As my friend JB says, “people gots to be paid.”

 

Slide 33:

“We no longer matter.”  I think this is true on one level as major corporation will decide the success level of MQA in the near term.  But I also believe that, in the long run, MQA will succeed mostly on how the consumer acts in terms of demand.  Will they pay for a premium tier like Tidal Masters to get MQA quality?  Will they reward device makers by buying MQA-embedded product?  Will they pay for another major streaming service to offer better sound quality?  I don’t have the answers to these questions but it’s got to be perceived by the customer to be of enough value to purchase or participate in.  If that falls flat then record label, streamer, and hardware device manufacturer interest will wane and MQA will fade out.

 

Other general comments:

There is also no mention of the success MQA has had in getting all the major record labels on board, the dozens of hardware manufacturers now including MQA in the process, and success in the mobile and automotive worlds.  If Chris is going to present the financial losses the firm has had as a startup then it’s only fair to objectively present their successes too.  We also don’t have a current set of financial statements so it’s impossible to judge what progress they have had over the past several months.

 

My conclusion is that Chris did not give MQA a chance to present their side of each point in the argument and, more importantly, did not present the MQA counterpoints we have been discussing all year or even include some of the relevant studies that were sent to him and other journalists.  So any person perusing these slides is only seeing half the information needed to make an informed judgment.  Of course, one should also partake in arguably the most essential event of all: that of a good MQA demo so one’s own ears can decide.

All that to say the same MQA lingo. 

 

My only response is that I have the facts on my side. I can't use alternative facts to present a counter point. The word truth is in the title of my presentation. 

[Lee Scoggins]

12 minutes ago, jabbr said:

IP encumbered data formats cannot be resisted too strongly. MQA doesn’t provide access to its format without NDA — that’s unacceptable.

 

This NDA process strikes me as just common business sense.  If you have invested millions in developing new software and algorithms, you certainly want to protect those IP assets.

[KeenObserver]

Even a cursory exam of the diatribe shows the BS.

 

One question before everyone starts tearing it apart: Lee did you put that all together by yourself?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Not as far as I know.

Interesting response Lee. I wonder how you would know what went on. Perhaps you're extremely close to the MQA team.

 

I didn't provide my slides ahead of time because I didn't finish putting them together until 10 minutes before the presentation started. However, MQA ltd is the first group of people I contacted after I settled on this topic for the presentation. I wanted them to be there. 

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

One question before everyone starts tearing it apart: Lee did you put that all together by yourself?

 

Yes.