MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

For me, this is the biggest thing. I couldn't care less about Tidal offering MQA as long as I can opt out and continue rebook resolution streaming. If I can't switch MQA off, I will cancel even though 95% of my digital listening is via tidal.

 

You will be canceling - Tidal is switching to a DRM service...the 16/44 versions of the MQA albums are NOT available.

[crenca]

Yes, it scares me that MQA might actually catch on. I am a firm believer that MQA is a solution for a nonexistent problem: I do not need to compress my music for any reason, storage is very affordable, and I prefer to purchase the music I listen to rather than stream. Looking at the potential for additional artifacts from the MQA process, i would rather not have those in my playback. Better sound quality? Is The Emperor naked?

Perhaps it is time to buy more music before it is too late...

 

Actually, it is probably too late (thinking pessimistically here). It is similar to where we were at with video in 90's and while tape is still available the DRM (i.e. DVD) is getting ready to take over and the "hook" is Superior video quality. With video the improvement was real and palatable - with MQA it will be marginal at best - most of the time it will be like discussing the sound of USB cables. But none of that matters because it is not really about sound quality, and the majority of (musical) consumers will be snookered unknowingly into our glorious DRM future when they buy thier next phone...

[crenca]

The original redbook versions are still there. Look at Enya "Dark Sky Island". You can play that and see HIFI displayed or you can play Enya "Dark Sky Island (Deluxe)" and see MASTER displayed.

 

No, the original 16/44 albums are being replaced with the DRMed ones. There used to be 3 16/44 versions of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours - 1 "original" (I will call it), 1 "Deluxe", and 1 "Super Deluxe". Now there are 2 16/44 versions (both of the "deluxe's") and 1 DRM (i.e. the "original"). The original 16/44 version is gone.

 

If you play the DRM version in the Chrome app for example (or Andriod, etc.) the "HIFI" still shows up (and not "MASTER") but I would bet real $money$ that it is the DRM version that is actually being streamed - why would they waste resources keeping the 16/44 in storage? Besides, the lables don't want 16/44 (or any other normal/high res non DRMed version) around and probably are insisting on it. The Chrome and phone apps will be updated soon anyways.

 

Sorry, it is only a matter of (a little) time...

[crenca]

With software decoding now in the mix, this particular issue goes away.

 

Yes and no. No - according to the marketing hype (i.e. Bob), you need the hardware (you can't be using a "legacy DAC") to get the full effect of MQA because software decoding does not get you everything MQA does. Yes - since it is not REALLY about SQ anyways, a software decoding solution gets you enough MQA that most consumers will be able to "hear" the effect and be convinced that is all worth it and everyone will get what they are looking for - more $sales$...

[crenca]

couldn't get it to work anyway. Tidal kept telling me I had to have the computer output set to 41k for it to work. So the master versions were played back in 41k

 

Take your ASIO driver out of shared mode and allow it to take full control...this may "fix" and get your DRM working correctly... LOL!

[crenca]

Obviously this is a very calculated case of subterfuge!

 

I am going to stop commenting, I still buy physical media and don't stream so it seems I have no horse in this race, yet!

 

You will soon enough. Notice also over on the "Big MQA news" thread how folks are saying "I'm streaming 24/92!"...no, no you are not - you are streaming MQA. They have been successful at their MQA = PCM subterfuge as well.

[crenca]

A proper listening test for MQA would A/B a single track where the track is the same source for both versions (same master, same original sample rate). Make sure it is a track which demonstrates lots of low level details (hall ambience will be especially effective, also soundstage depth) as these are what will be lost in the artifacts created in MQA. Also, listen really closely for differences in timbre, especially on bowed strings and brass instruments. Do a level test first as well with an SPL meter, any sound pressure differences will invalidate any results.

 

 

Barrow, check out my evaluation here:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-friend-devil-sonic-evaluation-31182/

 

I get a strong "different mix/source" impression, and no, they do not stream level match (you have to manually do it)...

[crenca]

I guess you are flat out calling Bob a liar and that the above analysis is made up? I'm confused.

 

To paraphrase tweety bird "but I did, I did see a Big Fat Liar Bob Man".

 

I don't know enough about the mathematics of the bit depth thing to comment, but when it comes to DRM Bob is a Big....Fat....Liar.

[crenca]

Vincent1234, correct me if I am wrong but are not John Siao, Mike Moffat, Jason Stoddard, Miska, etc actual electrical/audio engineers or otherwise with technical degrees that required them to actually pass (let alone take) calculus? And are not the "writers" you cite from Sterophile and elsewhere just that - journalists and writers who have a good bit of practical experience in "the industry" but nothing more and so really are simply regurgitating what Bob/MQA tells them? I could be wrong here...

[crenca]

-1 I don't agree :-)

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that:

 

"If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream)

 

Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique...

[crenca]

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.

 

It's wrong because words have meaning. PCM implies a known code, it has a technical and repeatable definition, and my DAC (as all) can process it. MQA is not PCM because of the very things you say - iand my DAC can not process it - not the important part, not the "hi res" part, not the part justify's MQA existence and not the part that is the reason the industry wants it (i.e. DRM). Words have meaning.

 

I will say more later - got to run!

[crenca]

Wow. I know for a fact you are wrong. You may not know it, so I won't call you a liar, but you should stop posting misleading and incorrect information.

 

Explain how I am wrong. How does MQA = PCM, technically. What is the equivalency (mathematically) between the a data set of say of "Friend of the Devil" encoded PCM 24/96 and the same file encoded with MQA?

 

Chris, respectfully, what are your "facts" that counters my claim that you will not be able to establish the above?

[crenca]

Aah yes, the old conspiracy theory popping up again. I studied journalism myself (it's my original profession) and I do believe that the general audio journalists have enough self critique and moral insight to know the difference between what does and doesn't sound good, especially at a well regarded magazine as Stereophile.

 

Michael's claim is not about SQ in what I posted - it is about the equivalency between PCM and MQA...at least that is how I understand it - perhaps your right in that his was a SQ claim of some sort...

 

Also no "conspiracy" if I understand your use of the term, only agreement about rather something is a "good" or not. My point is that I don't really believe they are wholly ignorant about the controversial claims of MQA - just that they don't care because they want to see it succeed - they like it. They also have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer. If they were consumer oriented in attitude/outlook, they would try (alot) harder to see, understand, and discuss the "cons" of MQA (or anything like it). I admit my strong consumer oriented bias...

[crenca]

No one is saying or implying MQA is PCM - not sure where you're getting that.

 

Bob Stuart says (in the Q & A found right here on this site):

 

"MQA audio is PCM in a world of PCM..."

 

"Yes. The MQA stream is PCM..."

 

I recall one of Bob's marketing folks saying "MQA is just PCM" with some emphasis in a video but can't recall where now. The point is that this false eqivalency is a marketing strategy - meant to ease your mind into accepting a codec that is in fact as different from your PCM as it is from DSD or MP3...

[crenca]

Again a very suggestive reaction IMO. To go into the question behind what you are suggesting here:

 

This response indicates a profound lack of knowledge how proper journalism in the free world is organized. To be able to properly distinct ad revenue and the related business interest from editorial content both areas are strictly segregated and editors and ad sales people therefore report into completely separate lines of management. It's a popular misunderstanding that ad sales defines what is written in the editorial section. In practice it's bs.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

 

While I do believe the above "fire wall" is exists in practice, and even that the editors/reviewers themselves depend on it, it the case of MQA it has been irrelevant. You ask for "proof" of their anti-consumer, pro-industry bias. The only "proof" I or any other consumer has is in their behavior and writings. They simply do not care to look at MQA from any other angle excepting the industries larger business problems (see Robert Harley's "Master Quality Authenticated (MQA): The View From 30,000 Feet") or from an insular, "sound quality is the ONLY criteria to judge anything" angle perhaps best expressed by John Atkinson himself:

 

"In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world."

 

When I discussed this issue with John Atkinson himself on the Stereophile blog, he completely dismissed the idea that MQA (or something like it) has any serious ramifications for the consumer at all except sound quality.

 

Heck, I would give them their due if they had been anywhere correct about the SQ aspect but here in the real world it turns out that MQA is not the "birth of a new world" SQ wise. It is at best a modest (even important) tweak in some cases, irrelevant or worse for other recordings.

 

You can go on about "proof" (which is largly irrelavant/not valid when it comes to human motivation) all you want but the proof is in da puddin...

[crenca]

After reading many long threads, it strikes me that something very important is not being said (or said clearly enough): MQA isn't wrong because it could potentially contain DRM. Or because its acoustic benefits are, at best, subtle. It's dangerous because it's proprietary.

 

This concern is obvious and undeniable. MQA attempts to replace well-accepted open data formats with a proprietary format - to replace lossless formats with a lossy one - mainly so that one company can grow rich by charging everyone a lucrative toll, forever. Presented as a total replacement for existing formats at both high- and low-end, MQA isn't simply a technical innovation. It's a cancer that becomes valuable only to the extent that it can take over the market.

 

Closed ecosystems are beneficial to the profit picture, but always anti-consumer. Open formats give consumers the control they deserve. And open formats are the only protection against a corporate ratchet effect, that slowly erodes consumer benefits. (Examples are endless. Look at UHD Blu-ray - a worthwhile evolution, in theory, it's being used to roll out always-on Internet copy-protection. But it's not just about DRM. You can't effectively embed advertising in an open format, for example. For industry, the ideal format is one that breaks when you try to edit out the ads.)

 

As consumers and music fans, we need to realize that whatever the up-front benefits of MQA, we are not the target customers. MQA lives or dies according to its acceptance by the recording and distribution industry. This handful of large companies can arbitrarily decide to make MQA the standard. They have massive long-term motivation to do so, absent any strong signs that the consuming public would rebel. In other words, we don't have to sound thrilled about MQA; all we have to do is fail to actively oppose it. The industry is just starting to realize what a wonderful thing MQA would be - for them.

 

High bitrates and low noise are all very well, but, next to the air between a musician and audience, it's open formats that present the lowest barrier to transmission.

 

Happy listening.

 

Yes, very well stated - you should blog this post.

 

Be prepared to be tagged as "a hater" who is simply arguing out of your irrational "feelings"

 

I would be interested in your thoughts as to why the "Audiophile Press" has been so pro "recording and distribution industry" and anti-consumer. My working theory is that they are too close to the industry in an effort to gain "access" and too distant from actual consumers - not a conspiracy just a broken system with consequences...

 

EXCELLENT point about advertising...folks should ask themselves about their last attempt to skip the advertising (FBI notice, previews, now plane jane product placements, etc.) on Blue Ray....

[crenca]

Relying on the audiophile press for objective information is tough because they never review something they don't like...that's an exaggeration of course but we all know it's also fairly close to the truth.

 

But there is no reason to believe that Darko said about an Inconvenient Truth MQA Sounds Better is a bald-faced lie, for example. There's no reason why 2L would lie about being able to correct ADC artifacts in MQA. There's no reason why investigating MQA SQ would be waste of time or money.

 

Basically I'm here for the SQ. If MQA brings it, I have the money. Other topics are frankly irrelevant-- such as the philosophical debate on wether or not music should be commercial. If MQA has or is planning on DRM that's not that important to me. If Tidal gets a stranglehold on MQA due to studio collusion then fine.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

I see your point - your just fine with the implications of DRM/closed/IP-protected-proprietary formats at the bottom of your musical eco-system that crowd out other options and or deliver "bad" DRM, advertisement, or otherwise limit a consumers options (such as with DSP, etc.). Others are not. Perhaps a poll is in order...

[crenca]

I would differ slightly in POV: The masses listen almost entirely to MP3 coded music, if MQA catches on for the masses, and replaces MP3, then that will likely be a wholesale step up in sound quality for the masses, and a game changer in that regard.

 

The problem I see, is that for audiophiles, we may lose access to straight, uncompressed non-DRMed high res files.

 

You got me thinking about my trip to Target yesterday to pick up baby wipes and a few other items. The baby section is near the electronics, music, and the Blue Rays. So I walk down the music aisle. CD's have one side of one aisle, and it looks horrible. About 50% of the treys are empty - it looks like a Target employee has not even walked down that aisle (let alone re-stock/straigten up) in a few days at least. I turn around, and look at the 4 well stocked, neatly kept aisle's of DVD and Blue Rays. It is THIS that has happened to "the industry", and not piracy - it is cell phones, Blue Rays, etc. Video killed the radio star, NOT piracy.

 

In any case I realized just how irrelevant the CD has become, which means that PCM 16/44 is a dead man walking - downloads (including PCM/DSD Hi Res) and all. It will be sooner, not later (I would not all be surprised if it happens within 5, certainly 10 years) that audiophiles loose our access to non DRMed music. There will always be the niche artists/downloads (think Blue Coast, etc.) available in PCM/DSD, but the vast majority (all the major label/ artists) will be available in MQA (or something like it) only. Of course I am playing a prophet here and don't know fer sur, but boy, I think one really has to be myopic to not see this coming.

 

Question is, will vinyl be the "audiophiles" saving grace?

[crenca]

It's completely fine to me that you disagree with Robert Harley and John Atkinson on MQA. That's not the issue.

The issue is that you are discrediting the complete audio press based on your personal guesstimations and apparently on this one example, without being able to proof it. That's also the background of Chris's warning to your earlier post.

 

W.r.t. 'which is largly irrelavant/not valid when it comes to human motivation': this sounds to me like a strange argument. Why would proof not be valid when it comes to human motivation? In other words: what allegation can you come up with that does NOT involve 'human motivation'?

 

Again, I'm not trying to defend every person working in the audio press. But I do think you should take more care when accusing people just because they don't share your personal views.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Vincent1234, your getting lost in your own morality tale here. Yes, the personal anti-consumer stance of John Atkinson (I only know it is his personal view because he told me and everyone else who cares to read about it on his own blog - it is a PUBLIC STANCE) does call into question the relevance of his wider work for me or any other consumer - this is just a fact. Why would a consumer of audio products trust what John says about this or that, when he himself admits that the consumer's perspective and concerns are not relevant to his evaluation of MQA? His stance/attitude/philosophy is an important datum for the consumer to consider when thinking about MQA or anything else.

 

No, I do not need to "take more care" for my strong and public consumer oriented stance any more than you need to "take more care" for your confused and confusing stance, or any more than John A. himself needs to "take more care" for his strong pro-industry stance. Your trying to inject a moralism into this discussion that comes from somewhere. I would ask you to explain it but honestly, I am not interested....

[crenca]

Having "multiple standards" is much the same as having no standards at all.

 

On previous threads I have done my best to explain the place of standards, formats, and the "digital ecosystem" but unfortunately it is seemingly largely lost on the majority of posters here. It has actually helped me understand a bit about the average "audiophile" and consumer of music (and video - really everything digital). This site is called "Computer Audiophile" but in point of fact many (most?) posters don't have a background in IT or some other experience that allows them to easily see the role that standards and formats play in their digital ecosystems (in this case, their "musical" digital ecosystems). Of course, there are many here (particularly those with a technical background - EE, etc.) that understand it right away.

 

What this means of course is that what MQA represents (a fundamental change of format/standard) and the implications of such a thing is difficult to convey - to them it is just another "product" among the other products they already have (such as CD's, Hi Res downloads, etc.). I would welcome your voice in this - sometimes just saying something in another way gets the light bulbs lit up...

[crenca]

...We came *this close* to having a Balkanized, closed Web, instead of the WWW we've got. I happened to work in an office in the early '90s where the folks next door (dozens of them) were setting up the billing software with which Microsoft was going to charge people for going on the Internet. Then one day Bill decided that wasn't really the way the world was going to work, and he sent a fairly famous letter through the exec levels of the company saying he'd seen the future and the Web wasn't going to be closed off into these little "shopping centers," it was going to be wide open. If Bill hadn't sent that letter, we'd likely still be dealing with the potentially crippling effects of an MS decision to charge for using the Internet, and this site, among many others, would almost certainly not exist. (A week later, all the dozens of folks next door and their office furniture were gone, as if they'd never existed.)

 

This is very very important (and this history is FACT - I can't speak to the specifics of Jud's personal experience, but I can speak to the wider situation vis-a-vis standards/formats that the WWW runs on - I was deep in server room in corporate IT at the time), and is directly related to what fung0 says:

 

"Of course, the goal should be to balance the needs of creators and consumers. Open standards inherently tend to do that - but the corporate worldview isn't about balance, it's about control. The tech press has accepted the industry perspective so completely that the most obvious criticism of MQA never comes up.Many people want to excuse MQA by comparing it to a new product, which consumers can buy or not buy. But MQA isn't a product. It's trying to be a standard"

[crenca]

I'm not getting lost here at all, but I think you still are and you were already.

 

Again: you are and were discrediting the WHOLE audio press, while using as only 'proof' that you don't agree with John Atkinson on his PoV on MQA and God knows what else. That sort of generalization is just silly. Period. To clarify for you in plain English (probably it's needed): 'John Atkinson' does NOT equal 'they'.

 

And maybe, just maybe he's simply right that from his audio press view MQA's SQ is more important than its proprietary nature? After all he's being paid to judge MQA primarily on those SQ merits.

 

I will just comment on 2 things and let you have the last word. I do think of Stereophile and Absolute Sound as being really really big (perhaps comparable to the NYT and I don't know, CNN or FOX News or whoever is the big cable mouth piece these days). If they don't represent "the WHOLE" they represent enough of it that folks know what I mean when I say "the Audiophile press". Like I said before, of the significant Audiophile Press that I regularly run across, only John Darko and our own Chris have in any way hedged or otherwise qualified their otherwise positive reviews of the SQ of MQA - the rest have been no holds barred promotion machines. When you throw in their complete dismissal of the other aspects (DRM, format, standards, etc.) of MQA it makes them anti-consumer.

 

No, John A is wrong - I don't care how he is being paid a change in our digital music format to a closed/DRM standard is YYUUUUUGGGGEEE as our president would say...

[crenca]

Yes, but...

 

Let's deal with realities, not fears. Of course MQA wants to conquer the world. Lots of companies do. Vanishingly few are successful. Let's do what we can by voting with our dollars, emails, and other forms of communication at our disposal, and by providing *credible* information. Otherwise the people you want to communicate with will dismiss you as hysterical.

 

Remember, Bill sent that letter after figuring out he could make *more* money from an open Web. The companies involved here would surely be responsive to a credible explanation that a more open market for music would be *more* profitable.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

This has me thinking about the music market. They want closed format/DRM because they look at $video$ and tell themselves "That's our model!". Ironically, they over weigh "piracy" and under weigh consumer behavior (who are now more interested in their screens than their music) as the source of their problems (large drop in $sales$).

 

Bandcamp says that the majority (I have 70% in my head) of their customers download the mp3 instead of the 16/44, even though the latter is the same price. Thus, the industry understands perfectly well that it is not about sound quality and thus a closed format/DRM (MQA or something like it) market has no cost to them. Bill saw that a balkinized web would cost him real $. They might be right about the music market in that a closed market does NOT cost the $...depressing to think about

[crenca]

#1) I am wondering three things. How many people will pay to stream those 15,000 hi-res albums currently available?

 

#2) How much of the catalog will have to be hi-res to interest those 12 million potential customers?

 

#3) And will MQA get a significant piece of this market?

 

Excellent questions Rt66indierock. Here are my speculative answers (they are speculative questions obviusly):

 

#1) Assuming you mean a premium service (as in $extra$) equivalent to the current Tidal 16/44 "HIFI" service, about what ever pay now - in other words a "Hi Res" service (MQA or something else) does not add or subtract significantly from what ever Tidal's market penetration into the 12 million potentials (using Serinus' #'s) is currently.

 

#2) Frighteningly little - most customers will sooth themselves with a handful of favorites, and hang on to the ever present promises of more to come.

 

#3) It will have all of the market, as it is the only game in town. There is no competing DRM standard (publicly known) with which it will have to compete. I am convinced now that the current 16/44 Tidal streaming is an aberration - the labels have allowed it as an experiment but are uncomfortable and will not do any more of it without a DRM standard with which to sooth their anxiety (even though this is actually not important in reality).

[crenca]

Hi Crenca, why do you think this regular 16/44,1 Tidal was just an experiment and why would the record companies force Tidal instead to use MQA with DRM?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Because as Absolute Sound's Robert Harley argues (rightly IMO) in his:

 

Master Quality Authenticated (MQA): The View From 30,000 Feet | The Absolute Sound

 

It is all about the "business realities", not about the sound quality. First and foremost on the list of "business realities", is the unreality (i.e. the false believe/understanding) of "the industry" that piracy and open format/standards is the source (or even a major part) of their woes (i.e. the fact that their market keeps shrinking year after year). Soooo, they are seeking a DRM "solution" to this unreality like a vampire seeks blood...

 

Before anyone objects, I am not arguing that piracy is a non-problem - what I am saying is that it is a problem like a minor skin rash is to stage 4 cancer. The cancer is "Video killed the Radio Star"...