MQA is Vaporware

[Dr Tone]

MQA/Bob isn't stupid, calling it a second unfold is brilliant it's the only way to sell it to audiophiles, if they said first unfold second upsample it would be blatantly obvious it was lossless and steer the fools away.

 

If you say it enough the magazine reviewers will believe it.

[Dr Tone]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Does this extend to not purchasing music from the labels who signed on with MQA?

 

Ugggh, what if they start downsampling and dithering the MQA master to cut the CD.   We need some way of stopping this mess.

[Dr Tone]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I believe the MQA model is elegant because it aligns the incentives of the record labels, hardware vendors, and the consumers toward a model for streaming music which you can think of as monetizing the music library away from one-time purchases into subscription revenue.

 

An elegant solution would be streaming the original hi-res PCM master in a FLAC container, using our existing hardware and still generate subscription revenue.  No need for new MQA hardware, licensing fees etc etc.

 

This would truly be a win for the consumer.

[Dr Tone]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

The alleged relationship between smartphone music streaming and demand for high resolution audio is quite a stretch.  Hi rez is still a tiny, tiny niche of total music consumption.

 

Definitely a large stretch.  I subscribe to Apple Music for phone use, it's all I need for my bluetooth headphones when walking around.

 

On a side note, as I walk down the hallway at work half the people listening to music on their devices have only 1 ear bud in and are fine with that.  Maybe mqa will sound even better with only one ear bud?

[Dr Tone]

57 minutes ago, firedog said:

What you seem to be saying is that YOU don't understand the math, so you are depending on what Bob Stuart tells you.

 

To reduce some typing let's reference Bob by his initials from this point on.

[Dr Tone]

1 hour ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

I would have to say choice of filters might be important to some, but the issue which bothers me is MQA might replace the nice 24/96, 24/192 and DSD downloads we can get now, if the labels have their way.  It's debatable as to whether MQA is better than 24/48 as it is.

 

And then possible replace them with MQA 2.0 of the same master.

[Dr Tone]

His publically admitting MQA issues or voicing an opinion outside the script are probably not allowed.

[Dr Tone]

I wonder if it’s now too late for Apple to squash MQA, would the labels allow them to stream and sell true lossless at this point?

 

Tidal is really irrelevant in the big picture.

 

 

[Dr Tone]

12 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I am guessing Apple sees MQA as a knat not even worth batting an eyelash over.

 

Let’s hope so.  If they do the unthinkable it’s lights out and MQA rules all.  They recently added Flac support for some reason.

[Dr Tone]

11 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sorry, my shorthand for HDMusicStreaming.  The Cheskys are about to launch an all-MQA streaming site.

 

These one off MQA streaming sites mean nothing in the big picture.

[Dr Tone]

23 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Not sure yet but I would guess there are three levers: price, user interface/experience, and music selection.

 

Similar to HDTracks crappy web interface and ridiculous prices?  I’ll pass.

[Dr Tone]

Just now, Sonicularity said:

Are you making any reasonable attempts to isolate your ears by removing the abundance of bias that is already very well known to exist with human hearing?   Also, when you are evaluating, do you consider precisely matching volume levels and ensuring that identical sources are used, when applicable?

 

I thought it was common knowledge that persons with the financial means to buy expensive systems that are "Extremely Resolving" are not susceptible to bias.

[Dr Tone]

 

4 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Isn't curious that a relatively small group of writers and bloggers set the narrative that MQA sounds better?

 

No where else has this narrative originated.

 

The expectation bias was implanted as quickly as possible on announcement.

[Dr Tone]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

As we both know from Hoffman, "your system's not resolving enough" is the go-to retort to those claiming not to hear a difference that the audiophile elite swear by.  Here, @GUTB has simplified this to, "your system sucks".  Same sentiment.

 

I've heard some of these "resolving systems".  I'm not going to lie, MQA filtering might actually make them somewhat more tolerable to listen to.

[Dr Tone]

17 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

In that case, how about a MQA listening report?

 

Do we really need another one of those?  People are quite capable of making up their own mind and shouldn't need reports from other people.

 

I'd like to see a report on the business of MQA, what the labels want from MQA and the implications on the consumer. What are the possible futures of music distribution with and without MQA.

 

Edit:  And to add, from someone else than Lee.

[Dr Tone]

I sampled MQA when it first came available to Tidal.  Of course I didn't have a MQA DAC.  I found in many cases the particular master I had sounded much better in 16/44.1 even.  More modern stuff that I could assume was the same master sounded different but not necessarily better or worse on a case by case.

 

The fact that I have no clue what master is involved with streaming and I wasn't dropping money on a new DAC, made me move on.  That has not changed for me now.  Sound quality aside I'm not for MQA for other reasons.  I like choice and I don't like a world with only MQA.

[Dr Tone]

I just found the following snippet in the Stereophile review of the Aurender A10.

 

We discovered that prior to applying the MQA firmware update earlier this year, MQA had recommended that we adopt using MQA up-sampling for all content in order to eliminate possible issues with click or pop noises when switching between non-MQA and MQA content. After some discussion with Alan at MQA about this, he had the following comment: 'The MQA decoder provides an optional up-sampler for PCM to simplify implementation and to enable a smooth, clean, click-free user experience. The reason this is offered is that the implementer may not know if the incoming stream is MQA and so the decoder is used to detect MQA and to provide a seamless switch to the usually higher output rate. By using Upsample Always, the user-experience is guaranteed to be accurate from the first sample of an MQA song and also to be free of clicks and pops if the user skips within a song or if there are cross-fades between songs.

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/aurender-a10-network-music-playerserver-measurements#hQJtAPr6yk2L6e6T.99

 

Might be better to stay away from any DAC that does MQA period.

[Dr Tone]

23 minutes ago, Confused said:

Reading all this I keep remembering that word.....

 

Elegant.

 

Does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside thinking about how Devialet will implement it, if they do? 

[Dr Tone]

17 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Dr. Tone

The issue with the A10 filter upsampling all content (MQA and otherwise) is old news. John A reported his findings in October of last year but since then, with the Aurender software update in mid-December, users can easily defeat that filter. It was Aurender's feeling that the filter improved the SQ of all formats but (appropriately, I think) decided to give people the choice of whether to use it or not—in part, I'm sure, because of all the objections that were raised in places like CA.

 

So the user has to manually switch the filtering between non-mqa and mqa albums and/or tracks?

 

Maybe that’s the elegant, MQA supporters talk about? 

[Dr Tone]

1 minute ago, ARQuint said:

Elegant, it ain't. But I maintain that MQA will not be of critical importance to the majority of A10 purchasers—the product has so much else going for it, no matter how you feel about MQA. They'll either leave the filter off all the time or—if they conclude, as Aurender maintains, that the filter helps non-MQA content—leave it on.

 

I guess if someone likes the kool-aid they’ll drink it all the time.

[Dr Tone]

4 minutes ago, russellbobby said:

As a A10 owner I can attest it runs as designed   You can choose to upsample if you like. Naturally a MQA file will override any filter settings to MQA proprietary settings. 

 

Now you are saying the opposite of @ARQuint

[Dr Tone]

Obviously Lee has ran out of names to drop and can only support one forum now.

 

His latest posts are trying to straighten out everyone on the downsampling upsampling "myth".  To his knowledge the second unfold is recovering content > 96kHz and there is no downsampling on MQA creation.

[Dr Tone]

23 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Can you please send me a link to some MQA content that has real content beyond 48 kHz that this magical second unfold uncovers?

 

 

You'll have to ask him.  I'm just passing his "I believe" misinformation on.  @Lee Scoggins please provide @Miska with the MQA content with information > 96kHZ you say exists.

 

Edit: Or even > 48kHz as Miska has requested.

[Dr Tone]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

So what does Lee have to say now that Bob has said up to 17 bits of resolution?

 

On the Hoffman forums he believes 17 bits is taken out of context because Stereophile said 23 bits in some past article.

[Dr Tone]

20 minutes ago, esldude said:

I have run completely out of patience with Stuart answering questions.  He has let sites like this one post questions, and he has answered them.  But he has been evasive and not at all forthcoming on most of the common questions.  Done so repeatedly and it has definitely been intentional.  He clearly has no intent of being transparent about MQA or answering those questions.  He is the fellow who could easily have cleared up most of the same questions at the very beginning and he did not wish to do so. 

 

If he answered the questions honestly it would turn off more potential users, reducing the chance of it taking hold and him making allot of money from licensing.  It's no coincidence that most MQA QA events have been cancelled recently, he knows the public other than Lee are catching on and might ask questions he doesn't want to answer.