MQA is Vaporware

[mevdinc]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

...

As an actual example of such changes being applied, look at the 2L-125 demo track. The MQA version is 1.3 dB louder across the spectrum:

 

Still mere opinion?

My experience with the MQA vs nonMQA of the same album/track is that I always find the MQA version being louder and the highs a bit more pronounced (exaggerated? -  probably the result of MQA being generally louder across the spectrum as Mansr noted above.)
Some people seem to equate this extra loudness of the MQA version to a more dynamic/impressive/better sound, but I personally find it to be fatiguing.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

 

@John_Atkinson

 

You are (were) the editor of an influential magazine. Some audiophile will swear by the words which you print. Because of such, you have a responsibility toward your readers to uphold the highest standards when it comes to the content published. You went overboard with MQA, created a buzz within the community which led to demand for MQA by audiophiles. Not once, there was any serious technical insight into MQA and the various claims made by the company. When various people found many holes in MQA and came forward with a serious technical explanation (basically doing your work) you chose to bury your head in the sand. That is the major reason why members here hold you to a different standard. I hope you realize it.

Mr. Atkinson was blown away by the "unfold" of the so called "origami", and he was so taken with it he called it elegant.

 

It then got the Stereophile rubber stamp, then cronies, Austin, Reichert, Lasagna, and Fremer ran with it continuing with that editorial decision. 

 

To be fair, Kal Robinson renounced, and Jon Iverson wrote it off.

 

His new boss found the aliasing and the loss of bits....

 

[Ralf11]

cue PaulR

[rickca]

3 hours ago, mevdinc said:

probably the result of MQA being generally louder across the spectrum as Mansr noted above.

See?  We need MQA because the loudness wars didn't go far enough. 🙄

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

cue PaulR

 

Need to cue up the music for that:

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Need to cue up the music for that:

 

 

Absolutely dazzling wit!  Was the music recorded in MQA? Sounded a little scratchy, so I figure must be an example of what MQA encoded music sounds like to you guys...

 

!

[manisandher]

15 hours ago, mansr said:

As an actual example of such changes being applied, look at the 2L-125 demo track. The MQA version is 1.3 dB louder across the spectrum:

 

This hasn't been what I've found in my 'apples-to-apples' comparisons of hires vs. MQA from the same master. The differences are typically very, very small:

 

 

Subjectively, they sound as loud as each other. And yet, they do sound different, as evidenced in the three 'apples-to-apples' threads. Aggregating the results of the three threads, people seemed to prefer the sound of MQA over hires (from the same master) in about 50% of cases. Draw whatever conclusion you wish...

 

Mani.

[John_Atkinson]

18 hours ago, mansr said:

For a professional writer, your language comprehension sure seems to be a bit lacking. Surely you're not being deliberately obtuse.

 

First, we have what seems to be the obligatory insult from a self-confessed troll 🙂

 

18 hours ago, mansr said:

 

As an actual example of such changes being applied, look at the 2L-125 demo track. The MQA version is 1.3 dB louder across the spectrum: 

 

 

Thank you. Had you posted this analysis in response to my question two days ago , a lot of bandwidth would have been saved.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

Thank you. Had you posted this analysis in response to my question two days ago , a lot of bandwidth would have been saved.

I posted similar things two years ago.

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

You found a 1.3dB difference and I didn't. What confuses you about this?

One of the simplest steps to control an audio comparison experment is to try to match levels.  Of course, on two very different recordings, the match of signal levels would be a lot less important than two recordings that are very similar.

There are so many pitfalls in doing an audible comparison for equality (and finding all of the differences correct), that a difference in level would be the first signal difference that *needs* to be mitigated.

If levels are different, because of the way that hearing works (level sensitivities, etc) then different aspects will become more or less audible -- adding more confusion to a careful comparison.  If a statistical method is used, then a constant difference in levels will cause a bias even in the statistical result done correctly.

In my own listening and desparate tests to verify similarity (I am not reliable on comparing for equality, even though I try), I find that even a difference of 1/4dB can cause issues.  If two recordings are very, very similar (or should be), I try to get the difference within 0.1dB.   Normally, that level of difference is not important at all for casual enjoyment, but the numbers are almost totally different for critical comparison.

 

John

[gdpr]

4 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

This hasn't been what I've found in my 'apples-to-apples' comparisons of hires vs. MQA from the same master. The differences are typically very, very small:

 

 

Subjectively, they sound as loud as each other. And yet, they do sound different, as evidenced in the three 'apples-to-apples' threads. Aggregating the results of the three threads, people seemed to prefer the sound of MQA over hires (from the same master) in about 50% of cases. Draw whatever conclusion you wish...

 

Mani.

One could also say

people seemed to prefer the sound of hires over MQA in about 50% of the cases.

 

Although I am saying exactly the same as you, it still ‘reads’ different.

Dirk

[manisandher]

3 minutes ago, ddetaey said:

Although I am saying exactly the same as you, it still ‘reads’ different.

 

However it's stated, the results suggest that MQA is neither massively better or worse than the equivalent hires, contrary to what some claim in this thread. (Or perhaps I should say "neither massively worse or better" .) 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

However it's stated, the results suggest that MQA is neither massively better or worse than the equivalent hires, contrary to what some claim in this thread. (Or perhaps I should say "neither massively worse or better" .) 

 

But the point is, you need to buy a new DAC, the MQA files cost more, AND there is the DRM which does not bode well. If there really is no difference, WHY WOULD I PAY FOR IT? That is the bottom line. One should only pay if there is a definite improvement which there is not.

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, botrytis said:

But the point is, you need to buy a new DAC, the MQA files cost more, AND there is the DRM which does not bode well. If there really is no difference, WHY WOULD I PAY FOR IT? That is the bottom line. One should only pay if there is a definite improvement which there is not.

Even if it made actual angels crawl out of your speakers and sing, the end to end lock-down is still unnecessary. Whatever it is they do to the sound, the result is fed to the DAC chip as plain old PCM samples. If they wanted, that PCM data could be distributed as standard FLAC and played on any existing system. All the "folding" and "rendering" exists for one purpose only: to increase MQA's revenue from royalties. Those who like Bob Stuart that much should just send him a cheque instead and leave our music alone.

[manisandher]

43 minutes ago, botrytis said:

One should only pay if there is a definite improvement which there is not.

 

Difficult to argue against.

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

If they wanted, that PCM data could be distributed as standard FLAC and played on any existing system.

 

Yep, I agree.

[crenca]

Putting aside the question of the real value of random audiophile reports, another point is that the "Audio Press" is still...summer of 2019...regularly reporting angels coming out of speakers when they play and hear MQA tracks.

 

They don't appear to have gotten the memo that there is no (zero, zip, nada) substance behind MQA.

 

edit:  that is, to the idea that MQA is a SQ improvement.  Taken for what it actually is  - a superMP3 that is pretty transparent to the source file but whose usefulness vis-a-vis market conditions is almost zero - it might have had a niche market, but it has all that "end to end" DRM and fraudulent marketing claim baggage that ruins it.

[John Dyson]

On 7/24/2019 at 9:27 PM, esldude said:

Sparse sampling, subtractive jitter.  Hinted at at least. 

 

Of course none of this explains why with this wonderful new format the first public demonstrations were against MP3.  You have a hard time squaring that with simply protecting hidden IP.  More like hiding that there is no worthwhile IP involved. 

There *IS* a big difference between 'interesting' IP and something that is worthwhile or appropriate for the application.  It might even be that the application is *wrong* (like MQA), even though there might be interesting ideas going on in there.

I sure hope that there is no idea that I advocate or even like MQA, because that would be a big misinterpretation of the fact that I have *TECHNICAL* interest, not MQA or any marketing interest for anything.  I am not even able to participate in the marketing of my own project as I am a *guaranteed* flub -- I am just not the right person for that kind of contribution.

A simple (trivial) example,  a full wave diode detector is very useful for a lot of applications, but how it is sometimes applied to the typical FET feedback compressor sucks excrement.  Even some well lauded compressors that use that scheme are much worse than they need to be, while still able to perhaps call themselves peak driven compressors (or 'limiters')if they use a variation on the theme or accept a simple extra level of complication.

So -- please note the very useful technical component, but suboptimal use of such.  My mindset doesnt' really focus on criticism, but rather 'how can I use the technology -- avoiding mistakes made by others?'

 

John

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

But the point is, you need to buy a new DAC, the MQA files cost more, AND there is the DRM which does not bode well. If there really is no difference, WHY WOULD I PAY FOR IT? That is the bottom line. One should only pay if there is a definite improvement which there is not.

 

Not defending MQA but I didn’t need a new DAC, Roon does the first unfold for me and I don’t care about the second, upsampled unfold, Tidal doesn’t charge any extra for MQA and my understanding is the potential for DRM is built into MQA but isn’t currently active. 

[crenca]

Here is some actual product journalism:

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a28505906/tesla-financials-q2-2019/

 

"....AN estimates that Tesla sold 43,000 Model 3s in the U.S. during that time. Given that BMW sold 21,158 3-series and Mercedes-Benz sold 27,337 C-class models through June, Tesla's claim that the Model 3 outsold "all of its gas-powered equivalents combined" is pure bunk to the fifth degree."

 

Contrast that with what Jim Austin, editor of Stereophile would probably say:

 

"...well if you line up this marketing duck, with this post Shannon discovery claim, and sprinkle it with a little post-Galilean fairy dust here and there...yes, yes indeed, Tesla's claims really do add up!"

 

 

[adamdea]

5 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

Thank you. Had you posted this analysis in response to my question two days ago , a lot of bandwidth would have been saved.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Leaving aside the froth and noise rising on top of this exchange, there is a real issue in here, John., which merits sober reflection.

 

Mansr and others have made a very valuable contribution by some painstaking research into MQA. There is careful and rigorous thought involved. That care and rigour has not gone unnoticed, and has drawn unfavourable comparison with that found in print media..  Had you been paying attention to what was going on you over here you may have taken his points on board.

 

Mans is a very clear thinker, I'm sure that if you can identify a flaw in his reasoning I'm sure he will consider and reconsider as appropriate. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, adamdea said:

Leaving aside the froth and noise rising on top of this exchange, there is a real issue in here, John., which merits sober reflection.

 

Mansr and others have made a very valuable contribution by some painstaking research into MQA. There is careful and rigorous thought involved. That care and rigour has not gone unnoticed, and has drawn unfavourable comparison with that found in print media..  Had you been paying attention to what was going on you over here you may have taken his points on board.

 

Mans is a very clear thinker, I'm sure that if you can identify a flaw in his reasoning I'm sure he will consider and reconsider as appropriate. 

 

Or John Atkinson is tool of special interests who had an ample number of people of tell him MQA wasn’t what he thought it was and ignored them.

[Samuel T Cogley]

The nearly universal embrace of MQA by the "establishment" audiophile press is what opened my eyes to what @crenca calls a Confidence Game.  At first I thought that was just hyperbole, but I now believe it's a fair and accurate description.  Generally speaking, the audiophile press does not put much (if any) emphasis on consumer advocacy.  But they never miss an opportunity to regale Bob Stuart with nauseatingly lavish praise.

[KeenObserver]

I bought a Benchmark DAC3 HGC for a number of reasons.  One of the primary reasons was that it was not infected with MQA.  It is a quality built piece of equipment that fit in with my needs.  Of primary importance to me is that it is made in America.  Being a proud American makes this important to me.

 

I do not purport to know what Mr Atkinson thinks,  but I suspect that Mr Atkinson wanted to lend support to a fellow Brit who was running a failing business.  I also suspect that Mr Atkinson wanted to see a process that would bring needed cash into a country that is slipping into third world status.  What bothers me is the disregard for the music consumer who is the base for his status.

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I bought a Benchmark DAC3 HGC for a number of reasons.  One of the primary reasons was that it was not infected with MQA.  It is a quality built piece of equipment that fit in with my needs.  Of primary importance to me is that it is made in America.  Being a proud American makes this important to me.

 

I do not purport to know what Mr Atkinson thinks,  but I suspect that Mr Atkinson wanted to lend support to a fellow Brit who was running a failing business.  I also suspect that Mr Atkinson wanted to see a process that would bring needed cash into a country that is slipping into third world status.  What bothers me is the disregard for the music consumer who is the base for his status.

 

I don't think that at all. That is too much of the 'conspiracy koolaid'. I just think they went with the talking points from MQA and used them. Then when there was push back, they kept pushing the same nonsense because of course, the HAVE TO BE RIGHT. It is more about being right and not admitting being duped, than anything else. 

 

As I stated before, it is the same thing that people who are anti-vaxxers do when you show them paper and paper that they are wrong. You bluster up and attack.