MQA is Vaporware

[vortecjr]

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

They were going to do incorporate MQA decoding in their O/S, and possibly in the hardware. This was a big topic. They threw in the towel due to the negative buzz. I followed it carefully. 

No. We didn't "through in the towel" per say...the work is done and it's working fine. We just changed our mines because while we were working on it the landscape changed. The main issues as mentioned above were Roon, A+, Tidal, and HD Tracks. The other main issue was the contacts and fees (yuck). From my perspective they should give it to us for free and just charge the content providers since in affect we would be helping them promote it. I said, "all the negativity" to give a bone to the cause:) You guys may not want it or like it, but a lot of people do and I still gets emails about it. 

[vortecjr]

38 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I never said you did not put in the effort, and that no significant work had been done, but what I am missing here...you threw in the towel, pulled the ripped cord, for what ever reason... I think that is a perfectly accurate description. I am not sure why are trying to soften your own words quoted above.

 

BTW, if you continue to get user requests, it is absolutely your prerogative as the business owner to change your mind and offer MQA. It is also the perogative of consumers to skip your product. But you have to do what is best for your company. 

 

Whether you believe in the "technology" and I used that term loosely, is another question.

I didn't soften anything...I explained the comment as only "I" can do. MQA is last on the list and last in importance to me. I have not put it in for the same reasons already explained...nothing has changed with the landscape. No reason to add it because it's indirectly supported through various other means. What MQA products are people boycotting over MQA...Roon, Tidal or A+. These solutions seem pretty popular to me despite MQA support. I support Roon, Tidal and A+ for doing it if for no other reason because they allow people to judge for themselves. 

[vortecjr]

The only think that is going to end this debate is a “class action law suit”. 

[vortecjr]

I just streamed the file from my Mytek DAC to my analyzer. 96kHz content according to J-River, 192kHz output according to Mytek  DAC. The Mytek  DAC has a purple light next to the MQA logo. Here is the output of my analyzer:

 

    

[vortecjr]

Here is the same file streamed from my Mytek DAC to my analyzer with MQA disabled. 96kHz content according to J-River, 96kHz output according to Mytek DAC. The Mytek DAC does not have a purple light next to the MQA logo. Here is the output of my analyzer:

[vortecjr]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Can you increase the bandwidth of the spectrum display to 100 kHz?

Here you go with MQA enabled at the DAC:

[vortecjr]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Can you increase the bandwidth of the spectrum display to 100 kHz?

Here you go with MQA disabled at the DAC:

[vortecjr]

18 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Which model Benchmark DAC? They support MQA rendering?

 

Sorry. I meant Mytek Brooklyn DAC with firmware 2.36 rev 0654. 

[vortecjr]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

Mytek != Benchmark.

My bad I was swapping emails with a customer at the same time. I'll update the posts.

[vortecjr]

 

39 minutes ago, mansr said:

A linear frequency scale would be more useful here.

Here you go with MQA enabled at the DAC and linear scale on the X-axis:

[vortecjr]

I updated the graph on post #16987 to show dBrA on the Y-axis. Not sure if you need to refresh the webpage to see it. 

[vortecjr]

If you guys have any questions for me just let me know and I'll be happy to offer my perspective. If not, let's get back to the typical yet otherwise boring MQA tennis match:)

[vortecjr]

I would like to see MQA or the new owners clean up the leaker filter. I know that would be admitting there was an issue, but that seems like the logical next step. This assumes a fix is even possible and I have no clue on that. 

[vortecjr]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That would require an update to all MQA hardware I believe. 

Yep...welcome to my world. 

[vortecjr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That would require an update to all MQA hardware I believe. 

Thinking about this…they could update the decoder code in Roon or Tidal easy enough. The hardware decoders would need a firmware update. Seems doable. 

[vortecjr]

9 hours ago, Spike Kasperak said:

Why bother? What is the point? Let it die. We should be taking a dump on the grave of this utterly useless fake technology.

I’m simply saying that it’s not as hard as was pointed out to update it because the first stage decoding was taking place on a hand full of servers. Was Audirvana another server decoding. 
 

If the code was made open source who knows what might come of it. 

[vortecjr]

26 minutes ago, Spike Kasperak said:

Yes, but again, nothing should come of it. MQA serves no purpose what so ever. It was a Get Rich Quick scheme that imploded and is in the scrap heap. Leave it there.

Your dwelling on the past...I'm looking forward. I have no insight into the code so in my mind it might be usefull or not.  

[vortecjr]

32 minutes ago, jcbenten said:

Why? What redeeming value is MQA?  Maybe the BT algorithm?  I do not know much about that...

 

IMO MQA is a vehicle for DRM for the Labels and income stream for the MQA investors...everything else is whitewash.

Maybe. The labels will do what they need to and if they continue down this path they should consider improve things. Impliment some transparency would be great.   

[vortecjr]

19 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

You're talking about the labels - the people who own the recordings, who were drooling over the thought of us buying our music all over once again.    

 

From LP to 8-track to cassette to Elcaset to CD, and then to DAT and Laser Disc, DVD, then to High Res upsampled downloads to the current flavors of DSD is so much better than PCM and MQA is the best yet. 

 

As the labels might say - "It just sounds better and better folks, take our word for it." 

 

"You need to buy it all over again.  It may not be worth it to you, but it certainly is to us."

For the most part with some exceptions MQA was used in streaming services. As such, you were not buying the content just accessing the stream. Also, no one was making you buy anything and you could avoid MQA if you want to. I only a few MQA samples for testing so they didn’t make any money from me that way.

[vortecjr]

15 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

Hold the phone.  Yes, I think we all understand that the original premise was that it would reduce the size of files for download - streaming wasn't that prevalent when MQA was rolled out.  

 

However, when that faltered, a number of manufacturers, now apparently against their will, included MQA unfolding and a light of some type (?) to authenticate an MQA recording so that it could be heard in its true, full glory.  

 

There is definitely a hardware connection, and one that was concocted between MQA, the labels and the manufacturers who did it because "their customers wanted it."

 

If we're looking for the "man behind the curtain" we need to start with the usual suspects.  

That seems speculative to me. We had conversation with them and that never happened. When we respectfully declined to implement an MQA decoder we simply parted ways. We were not looking to add it because our customers wanted it. The number of customers that have emailed us over the years requesting it is actually very small. We are looking at because we wanted customers to be able to try regular playback vs MQA playback on the same unit. When I purchased my DAC I made sure it did not have MQA capabilities. But there is an interesting side conversation about my DAC’s manufacturer and MQA. 

 

[vortecjr]

I would curious to see a lossless compression scheme - 16bit or 24bit at 44.1kHz or 48kHz file that contains hi-resolution content. No compression for the sake of compression. BTW I have no particular reason except to see it can be done. An engineering exercise if you will.   

[vortecjr]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Having purchased a classical album from Qobuz in 24/96 resolution, I'm offered this: "Additional audio formats available: FLAC, WAV, ALAC, AIFF and more." FLAC and ALAC, of course, are lossless compression schemes. I can scan this with Audirvana to see if it's "true" hi-res if you're curious, though the artist (Jordi Savall) is the label owner and I know the label is conscientious about good sound.

Cool...I'll check him out. The additional formats are additional purchases?   

[vortecjr]

They should have modeled it where one would purchase low res and had access to hi res at no extra cost except buying into a server that supported decoding or hardware that supported decoding. The streaming services would have then offered it low res with the perk again at no extra cost. You can buy high res if you want but that is another topic. Accept this as DRM in a closed source form. 
 

I think the technology has potential if it can be made to work properly and be verified. Would I go out and buy this format…no because I’m okay with streaming low res content. If I want to stream high res content I’ll just use HQ Player to resample. Accept that people will have different opinions on this. 

[vortecjr]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

FLAC or ALAC or APE take your pick. All are lossless. You can vary the compression ratio in FLAC ans APE.

I know…nene you didn’t get what I was saying. 

[vortecjr]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

15 years ago yes, not now. Storage is cheap.

I don’t see this about storage space.