MQA is Vaporware

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I don't like use of the term "lossy" in the discussion because it is not the same as "severe quality degradation" but people think it is.

 

"Lossy" just means you can't mathematically recover the original, and that is true of the majority of upsampling/filtering algorithms and modulators used in software players such as HQPlayer. I would guess you would consider some of your "lossy" upsampling/filtering algorithms to be sonically your best ones.

 

"Quality degradation" is of course a different ballgame, and use of those sorts of words I don't mind at all, because everyone is absolutely clear about what it means.

 

Bravo. I think this is a very important insight. Most of the flurry of outraged audiophile objections to MQA seem to come down to the logic that "it's lossy, therefore it self evidently compromises quality". But, you have hit the nail on the head: two different things.

 

I know, I know. MQA has taken forever and a day since initial announcements. It still might be a complete flop. I certainly am not ready to invest a nickel in it. And, I still have not heard it, nor am I in any hurry. But, I am willing to be shown what it can or cannot do in the fullness of time.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

What is wrong about his statement? The MQA file is compressed in a 24/48 container, but contains (almost) all the data necessary to reconstruct the original 24/192 (or 24/384 or higher) file once it passes through the USB interface.

 

Yes, it's not 100% lossless, but it's pretty darned close (i.e., lossless to 24kHz, very nearly lossless to 48kHz, lossy but containing quite a bit of the original content up to 96kHz, etc.). The part that's missing is clearly inaudible (i.e., a lot of garbage below the noise floor and some of the content above 24kHz).

 

I understand skepticism, but there's quite a bit of rancor going around which is (in my opinion) overblown and misplaced.

 

+1. The "lossless" stuff is a bogus red herring. As Jud pointed out elsewhere, HQPlayer is no more lossless in converting PCM to DSD than MQA is in converting PCM to PCM. (If you converted HQPlayer's DSD back to the original PCM sampling rate, it would not be bit identical with the original.) Yet, HQPlayer is a revered and beloved player in these here parts and "sounds great". Ya got that, pardner.

 

You are are exactly right about the rancor. I have no idea why otherwise seemingly reasonable people are throwing their bodies in front of this moving train. It is simply not a life/death matter. And, MQA will succeed or fail on its sonic merits or the lack of them to the greater marketplace of music listeners in any case, not the guru wanna-be's here.

[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.

[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.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, juanitox said:

i have  Fleetwood mac Rumors  in 16/44   24/96  MQA and  SACD , i would say the same the MQA don't sound better

but like if the mix is not the same as the others ?  anyway the SACD file  is still  far beyond what a shame this format is also in a dead end !

SACD may be in a dead end for rock and pop, but it is not for classical.  Yes, classical is a niche, and SACD is just a niche within that.  So, I am not trying to overstate the market impact.  

 

There continue to be remastered, reissued oldies from the analog era on SACD.  But, more importantly, newly recorded material using the latest hi rez technology also continues to appear from a number of labels, if at a much, much slower rate than CD.  Most newly recorded SACD's offer discretely recorded hi rez DSD multichannel, as well as stereo in DSD and RBCD formats.

 

The SACD hybrid idea, offering hi rez but with downward compatibility to CD,  has been mirrored in MQA.  Also, MQA supports multichannel, though that is in the early stages of being rolled out.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, MarkS said:

 

Yes, I am sure (absent intentional fraud or misrepresentation) that the files were absolutely identical except the "MQAing"of the non-MQA files from the non-MQA versions to create the MQA'd "duplicate" version.

 

The demo was simple.  Exact same system playing exact same files.  One file was MQA, the other file was the "duplicate" non-MQA.  The group of about 15 people listened to either non-MQA first or MQA first, then the other.  Each track was a few minutes long.  The demo was about 2.5 hours.  There are only a few days that can play MQA, so I am not sure what steps would need to be taken to assure that the dac was properly playing PCM.

 

I am not sure what the last point about going to various shops means. Certainly both the MQA and non-MQA files would sound different on a different system.  I do not disputing that.  The point of my post is that I heard a simple A/B demo (that I considered completely legit) in which MQA sounded better.  So, to me, in keeping with this thread, MQA is not vaporware.

 

Mark - a good friend who is a recording and equipment reviewer was also there and he agrees totally with you in what he told me about it just yesterday.  I trust his ears.  He also has a piece of gear for review that will play MQA, so I will soon get the opportunity to listen for myself.

 

I also agree with Jud.  This is not a life/death matter.  But, if there is the possibility of somewhat better audio at the end of the rainbow, it deserves a chance for a fair hearing.  

 

I just do not get this stampede of negativity and outrage coming from people who have never actually heard it, but who only think they understand it all.  Talk about beliefs, in the absence of hard evidence, running amok.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

"hard evidence" is exactly what is missing, and what MQA is apparently dependent on:

 

 

 Not saying that MQA have themselves presented sufficient "hard" evidence, but neither have the naysayers, including @mansr and others. There are a lot of things in audio that lack "conclusive proof" and where only the marketplace eventually decides. Seminars under decent conditions as described here are a step in the right direction.

 

 But, I also have read many of Stuart's papers, which impress me and lead me to more of an open mind on the subject.  Certainly listening for oneself is an important step.  I have no doubt you would strenously object if I criticized your audio system from afar without having actually heard it, as would I under similar circumstances.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

19 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Don't disagree with all you said, but I do not think this "seminar" or demo is "under decent conditions", unless one counts something deliberately set up to do come to a forgone conclusion "decent conditions".  As Schneider points out it is exactly a real apple to apple demo that has been and continues to be missing.  The one he can point to (JA experience) reveals a coin toss for MQA - that was not supposed to happen.

 

Also, mansr (and others) have revealed questionable SNR effects, etc. However, again as Schneider points to the "birth of a new world" claims are simply have not actually been seen in the wild (even JA had to admit that in so many words).  The more subtle effects as described by MarkS can be attributed to many things - all well within the normal controlled manufacture demo process (or is it more accurately described as a manipulation?) and he came out with the impression he was supposed to.  

 

I do not see where we have crossed into anything more credible than Bigfoot sightings and off course your right, it is very hard to prove the non-existence of Bigfoot...

Could, would, might, ... Etc.  Yes, all those are possible.  But, your negatives are pure speculation, hyperbolized with Bigfoot references. That does not make them so.  

 

There are certainly charlatans and rip off artists out there in audio.   Believe what you will, but I see absolutely no reason to put Bob Stuart in that category.  There is nothing at all in his track record at Meridian to suggest he would be a party to any kind of scam, as has been charged.   There is nothing in his AES papers to suggest that either.  Some may disagree with his theoretical conclusions, but that happens all the time in science and technology, not just audio.  Incidentally, I have never owned a Meridian product or even lusted after one. Too pricey for me. 

 

On on the other hand, MQA might be a flash in the pan, all sizzle and little else. Or, it might be great, but flop in marketing and implementation.  Who really knows?

 

There would also appear to be no way to satisfy you or others with any evidence.   MQA themselves were involved in the demo last week. Why would you assume they rigged the demo?   But, even if they were to supply measurements or bias-controlled listening tests, they would be dismissed as biased.  

 

What third-party might provide you with satisfactory objective proof and how would they go about it?  Who has the incentive to do that?  No one really, as is the case with much in audio. I am not ready to trust CA denizens who claim to be competent and impartial any more than I am willing to trust MQA.  I am just willing to listen to what they have to say and to how the product sounds to my own ears.

 

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

35 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I would like to see just the basic (however problematic) review process occur.  This is what Doug Schneider and others are asking for.  The only third party who has had the pleasure of reviewing his own recordings through his own equipment is JA (apparently - do you know of any others?) who had the decency to admit it was a coin flip.  This is what I hear through my most resolving system (HP rig) on recordings on Tidal that I am confident have not been remastered and for which I also own a Hi Res version - granted I only use "legacy" DAC's.

 

Demo's controlled by MQA do not count.  When I can attend a demo (probably won't happen at the typical audiophile show) at a local dealer, controlled by the dealer such that he/we can try MQA through different DAC's (and different everything of the rest of the playback chain) and compare it to equivalent PCM (through DAC's optimized for PCM) then we will have a real demo.  This is what we demand of every other piece of equipment/tech/recording, why do we not demand it of MQA?

Reviews/ endorsements using own recordings?   How about Warner, Atlantic and 2L. They did not publish a formal review, but they all bought into MQA for their own recordings, a big commitment.  Also, there is a boutique recording engineer in Florida named Peter McGrath, who also works for Wilson. Again, unpublished, but I know of this through friends.

 

Published reviews in the mags?  I know Kal Rubinson at Sterophile and Andy Quint at The Absolute Sound are both working on reviews of MQA recordings/playback equipment, Kal in multichannel. I believe both have recordings with/without MQA to compare through excellent systems.

 

Ok, you want to be in control of any demos yourself.  Fine.  Except that dealers have had little product to let you play with as the glacial rollout of MQA to actual consumer product finally moves on to that stage.  But, you will, I am sure have an opportunity to listen for yourself in the months/years ahead.  Until then, why prejudge?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Stuart is the most dangerous kind, a charlatan with real credentials.

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. And, it is nice to see we agree that his credentials are undeniably very real.  But, there is no smoking gun to back you up on the charlatan notion.  I know you will say this whole MQA thing is primo evidence, but, I look at MQA and say, this might be something really interesting and worth a listen.  

 

I will get my chance soon enough, probably within the next week or two.  Maybe you will get an opportunity to listen to it via an MQA DAC as well, if you can bring yourself to listen to that.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

20 minutes ago, botrytis said:

What I want to see, is a third party double blind test, which demonstrates that MQA is superior and not just different. This would go along way, but Meridian being involved makes all the listening tests suspect. Also, it would be nice to know WHERE the files are coming from and that they are from the same master (a guarantee as it were).

 

MQA, as others have stated could be the linch pin, where they can add watermarking etc. into the file. That is not what I want, because that starts their control over where and what I can play. FLAC cannot be watermarked as that is why it was designed - Free Lossless Audio Compression and hence why I use it.

Beautiful!  The problem, however, is not Meridian, as you surmise.  You do not want them to be paying for your blind listening test, otherwise they might taint the results.  So, who else might do it on a pro bono or self-interested basis? 

 

Hmm. Scratching my head.  We could hope for magazine reviews.  But, they would be accused of bias because they accept advertising, including that by MQA.  Besides, no magazine believes in double blind. 

 

Who else?  Hmm.  We seem to have run out of options.  But, we have been here before with most other audio improvements.  We are just going to have to listen and to judge for ourselves.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I just hope I'll be able to use MQA on my cassette deck....

Get out your soldering iron!

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Yeah, "audibly" lossless, which doesn't have a strictly mathematically defined meaning.

Right, and this brings up one of the fundamental issues.  Stuart and his cohorts base much of this technology on psycho- and perceptual acoustics.  Some think that is tantamount to BS, primarily out of ignorance.  Others think, if it is based on careful experimentation, there may be some validity to perceptual and psycho acoustics.  I am in the latter camp.

 

I would have to see the context in which they used "audibly lossles".  Personally, I think this whole "lossless" idea is a red herring merely intended to discredit MQA.  MQA is a process claimed to be predicated on "improving" the sound.  One cannot  "improve" sound without changing the bits making up the audio signal in some way.  But, if the sound is changed for the purpose of improvement, how can something be judged to be "audibly lossless", which implies there is no change to the sound, with and without the process.  That is a standard useful only for compression/decompression schemes, not MQA, which is only partly such a scheme.

 

Put the other way, the "lossless" idea in the strict sense would preclude any audible improvement to the sound. I quite agree that if MQA were truly "lossless", it would be worthless, just another arbitrarily different compression scheme, ultimately just producing the same sound we already have.  I agree with those who say "we don't need that".  But, that is not what MQA purports to be.

 

I also agree with @MarkS. The idea, if at all valid, is that MQA attempts to reach beyond the existing infrastructure of AD and DA converters and closer to the true source, the sound of real instruments in real space.  Does it work as advertised?  "Lossless" is in no way helpful in assessing that.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

You must not be looking very carefully.

 

Here's an example from Bob Stuart himself: http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-losslessness-questions

 

But, his statement is qualified - "all the information in the file that relates to music content" and "everything in the triangle on the Origami diagrams".

Like this whole technology, what these qualifications truly mean might be highly debatable.

 

I am not his attorney or representative, but I believe the "lossless" issue is a red herring brought up by those wishing to lynch Stuart and MQA.  I do not think losslessness is ever relevant except in discussing digital signal transmission, such as simple compression/decompression schemes.  MQA contains compression/decompression, but purports to do much more than that.

 

Something cannot not be both strictly lossless and provide a sonic improvement over the original at the same time.  Insisting that it be lossless in the strictest sense would make it just a different way of transmitting the same sound we have now. We don't need that. 

 

When I route digital signal from my NAS to PC though a calibrated DSP room correction app to DAC, it achieves a major sonic improvement.  Yes, I want each leg of the transmission to be digitally lossless in the strictest sense, but the DSP process alters the content of the original file in a controlled, but proprietary way using a calibration and EQ tool I have chosen and purchased.  The proprietary inner details of that tool are not fully disclosed, nor do I claim to fully understand them.  But, white papers and commentaries are available suggesting there is much thought and valid theory applied to the process.

 

However, the overall process from the original file to DAC is not lossless. Meanwhile, there is no question that it sounds better to my ears based on careful listening.  Hence, proprietary details, losslessness, etc. are really irrelevant in my listening evaluation of the DSP EQ tool.  Personally, I take the same stance with regard to MQA.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

The term lossless has always had a specific meaning when discussing codecs. Stuart has deliberately chosen to misapply this word to mean something else when talking about MQA. I can only see that as intended to mislead the reader. The correct term, in this context, for inaudible degradation is "transparent." That's the word everybody else has always used.

 

"All the information that relates to music content" as opposed to simply "all the information" is the very definition of a lossy codec. To then throw in the word lossless is nothing short of fraudulent.

The lossless or not question applies only to the compression stage. The alleged "de-blurring" is a distinct process applied before the compression. Obviously, this manipulation, if it exists, is expected to alter the data.

Ok, ok.  I get it.  MQA cannot possibly be any damned good because Bob Stuart's semantics and use of words differs from yours.   His is, frankly, criminally fraudulent, because he used a word in a way you do not agree with.  Lock him up!

[Fitzcaraldo215]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Honestly Fitzcaroldo214, his misuse and abuse of this term goes beyond a semantic argument.  He knew perfectly well (everyone knows of his expertise, experience - his respectability) what the term meant in the digital audio world and he knew exactly what he was doing with his intentional obfuscation of it.  Your not going to go all Bill Clinton on us and argue the definition of "is" are you?  Bill Clinton knew exactly what it meant to "have sex with that women" and Bob knows what "lossless" is.  Both are Big Fat Liars all day every day (and I like Bill Clinton).

 

The question is why?  Well, these are the kinds of things (lying, cheating, etc.) on the edge so to speak - in the voodoo Hi Fi world.  The only "trade secrets" and "patents" being protected are the empty ones, because you don't need to do it this way and when you are legite you know this.

 

 

I love these kinds of "debates".  

 

So, how many unqualified references in any literature or in any quotes by Stuart or anyone else connected with MQA are there to "lossless"?  Careful, those must be distinguished from citations of "perceptually losslessness", a different thing.  Really, I do not know, but I would love to find out, if you want to make this a confrontation. But, I do not really care, in that it sounds like it sounds, debate about semantics and technicalities or not.

 

Honestly, this "lossless" thing is just an attempt to drum up propaganda and incite the mob to get their pitchforks for lynching.  The overriding question is does MQA improve sound at all? I do not yet know, myself, so if you have a solid answer, let us all know. Raise of hands if you have actually heard it.

 

You cannot get an answer to that by semantic parsing of Stuart quotes. You cannot get anything from anything here, other than listening and deciding for yourself.  How many have done so?

 

I myself have not decided, and I have serious concerns regarding incompatibility with DSP EQ, which I consider essential and which, so far, seems a serious compatibility problem for me.  So, MQA might be very problematic for me.  Nonetheless, I think the question of whether MQA improves audio and by how much is not a question of semantics or mob rule. 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

26 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

There is a huge difference between a  DSP that is calibrated for YOUR room and this debluring filter. One is specific and one is not. I don't even know that digital files need to be 'deblured'. Where is the data to show this is a big deal?

You may indeed be right. Data that is accurate, unbiased, meaningful, etc. are not really there, as far as we know.  But, that is just as true of most other stuff in audio, some widely accepted and popular.  Even so, when the data are there from credible sources, many audiophiles go into denial.    

 

This is dangerous on my part.  But, I must ask.  In a forum that has overwhelmingly endorsed and gone ga ga over the Regen as an unquestioned, drop dead example of an audio improvement,  with no measurements to back that up BTW, thorough such measurements were promised and never delivered,  why is MQA suddenly lacking in credibility or, at least, not given an equal chance via simple listening?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I think this is a good question, however it (i.e. Regen, and other digital voodoo) does not have the import of MQA because it is not trying to be a standard.  It is just a product among many, take it or leave it.  MQA is trying to be a standard - it is saying something about all our music, not just this or that (eccentric) system.   Also, jitter is a real thing - even if not nearly the problem as many auidophools think it is   

 

Now, what is "de-bluring" and....so on and so forth

 

 

Thanks.  

 

I think I understand what "de-blurring" is.  But, others may not, and they may need to listen for themselves and determine if there is any validity to MQA's claims.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, if you really think that I gotta ask - where have you been these last few decades or so?  The term lossless and its meaning have been central (in every way important) to just about everything in the digital audio world on every important level - from the invention of the CD on to lossless codecs.  Not just on the SQ side either, but on how music is played, stored, and perceived.  Even on the legal/cultural side ("piracy", streaming, etc.) and the perceived "value" of music the meaning/concept has been critical.

 

No, it is not about meaningless/pedantic "semantics".  Also, MQA is different than your "lossless" DSP tools/process because it is source software and (putting aside legal issues and the place of formats) thus rather it is "lossless" or "lossy" has different implications...

I would ask where have you been?  As I said, MQA cannot be both a sonic improvement scheme and a "lossless" transmission scheme.  I think it is clear what it claims to be, which is not merely the latter.  But, by all means, keep perpetuating the lynch mob claims.  The truth is out there somewhere.  

 

Maybe we'll all get to ithe truth some day when tempers cool.  But, that might be too late.   Bob Stuart may gave sucked the profits out of all audio commerce by then via his malicious, monopolistic scheme.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Well, that's a first. Do you also understand quantum electrodynamics?

No. And, why should I care at all in any way.  Please, educate me.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Perhaps slightly over the top (though if he *did* understand QED or QCD or whatever you like to call it, that would be a hoot  ).

 

 I feel reasonably comfortable concluding from all sources of information I've currently seen, that "deblurring" is MQA's snappy term for removing ringing (and any "time smear" that may or may not go with it).

I think that is probably quite accurate.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 hours ago, Fyper said:

Yes you can apply any DSP to your files and it's not lossless anymore, and yes, it is done for improvement purposes.

But if you change your mind or want to apply another DSP anytime: you still have the lossless original file.

Can you do that with MQA?

By the way, what if MQA improve their "magic", will there be a MQA2 format? And we'll have to buy again the files and the hardware?

You are, of course, correct.  Only studios would have the raw original file, much as happens now if they record their CD releases at higher than RBCD resolution even without MQA.  They might re-release at higher resolutions or "higher quality" mastering later, as they often do, over and over with every new wrinkle.

 

My comparison as an example to user applied DSP is not exactly analogous to MQA, and it might be misleading to take the analogy too far.  As we know, DSP room EQ is normally only applied on the fly and does not replace source files.  

 

As an aside, one of my biggest concerns is interoperability of MQA with DSP room EQ. That is not looking good, unless I were to replace my EQ package(Dirac Live) with someting new that is MQA compatible.  It is to early to know for sure, but If it came to it, I doubt I would eliminate or replace my DSP room EQ for the sake of MQA.

 

Aside from that, if I were sold on the merits of MQA, which I am not by the way, I would not have a reason to want the non-MQA original or to be able to "undo" the MQA encoding in a file.  I assume the studio would archivally keep the raw original file.  The studio owns the rights to that file, and they may release or re-release it as they wish in whatever format. 

 

MQA2.  Hmmm, sounds like a real moneymaker to me, since it has been so smooth and easy to get MQA1 off the ground.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

 

Summing up what I found most interesting this month was the comparison of MQA to DSP. People are increasingly seeing DSP as part of the MQA process. It’s as if the MQA conversion process creates a slightly different sound when a recording is processed instead of using DSP as a logical way to solve room and speaker interaction with the room issues.

 

Finally I must thank Kal Rubinson of Stereophile. He is apparently the driving force behind multichannel MQA. Imagine Joe Six Pack springing for three DACs to make this work. And for this quote from Music in the Round #84 talking about the improvement MQA made to multi-channel recordings (and some stereo) “However, the differences weren't blatant; I couldn't hear them without paying close attention. A visiting colleague said similar things, and although we agreed that MQA's improvements were of the same order that we experience from applying good speaker and room correction, we also agreed that they were a different sort of difference.”

I am not sure I follow your comments regarding MQA and DSP, especially not after reading Kal's comments.  The two clearly do different, non-overlapping things.  The only big, unsolved problem so far is their lack of inter-operability. Ideally, we could do both simultaneously.  So far, that has not happened.

 

I have now also heard MQA for myself, though in stereo, not Mch, via an Aurender A10.  The MQA and non-MQA versions were compared via Tidal. My views are very much in line with Kal's, and they were shared unanimously by two other listeners in the same session.  One, our host, is a reviewer who will publish his views in a month or so.  I think MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.  

[Fitzcaraldo215]

12 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Fitz, Am I understanding you correctly?  You don't care if access to all the original lossless files is withdrawn by the labels. Thus allowing MQA to slap its DRM like control over music delivery. 

I would find that a very discouraging position.  

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding. I see no actual evidence or even the possibility that MQA can so monopolize the global recording industry consisting of many separate, independent companies, its formats and distribution channels, such that that the "discouraging position" to which you refer has the remotest chance of occurring before our eyes as we sit powerlessly by.  It seems like a paranoid, trumped-up conspiracy theory to me.

 

The sky is not falling, studios are not withdrawing all lossless files, and massive DRM is not being imposed throughout the Galaxy. Has anyone actually said they are withdrawing all their non-MQA recordings from CD, BD, streaming or downloading?  

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

19 hours ago, new_media said:

Some of the standard vs. MQA albums in TIDAL are from different masters, so you have to be careful that you are comparing apples to apples.

 

I have compared some of my own FLAC files to MQA through TIDAL, which I'm pretty sure are the same masters, both using an ME2 DAC, and frankly I don't hear much difference.

Do we know this "different masters" thing for a fact on Tidal?  Do we know which ones? Is there a list somewhere?

 

It is possible there were different masters.  But, we listened to a number of selections in different genres from different labels.  Some recordings were fairly newly made, some were analog remasters, etc. 

 

The results, the "sonic signature" of the difference was similar between them all.  After the first few comparisons, where we learned what the difference sounded like, two of us could then spot it immediately blind, not double blind, with our host making the selections.  It is not true objective science, but it was close enough to convince us. So, I do not think the "different masters" theory was at work.