MQA is Vaporware

[Lee Scoggins]

On 11/13/2017 at 3:36 PM, FredericV said:

 

 

It seems reviewer Lee Scoggins (reviewer for Part-Time Audiophile) is now also a moderator of the closed MQA group:



Also mentioned on Steve Hoffman forums:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mastering-engineer-brian-lucey-rips-mqa.711977/page-10#post-17536912

Why does a reviewer need to manage a closed facebook group? It looks like all of the MQA lobbyists are in it together.

 

 

 

Hi Frederic,

 

Lee Scoggins here.  I just joined but have lurked around CA for several years and, in fact, sat next to Chris Connaker at Rocky Mountain in the Wilson/Constellation room.   I think the Alexia 2s impressed both of us.  

 

Allow me to clear up a few things...

 

1. Peter Veth added me as a moderator without my prior permission but with the good intent of having me add some of my friends in to grow the group. No nefarious intent or conspiracy here.  Many closed groups exist to facilitate spam control.

 

2.  I was removed as a moderator today as I don't have the time and I have not fully made up my mind on MQA.

 

3.  I do classical recordings and I plan to ask Bob Stuart or Mehow (Mytek) if they can encode a recording I did with the Texas Guitar Quartet.  That will allow me to do a more thorough and meaningful comparison.

 

4.  I have been impressed with two MQA demos I heard, one set up on a listening station at Mytek's Axpona booth and the demo that Peter McGrath and Bob Stuart did at the LA Audio Show.  The MQA encoded files sounded better to my ears in each instance.

 

So I am now on the forum here and I am still exploring the pros and cons of MQA encoding.  I hope these comments are helpful.  Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Thanks,

Lee

[Lee Scoggins]

9 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

HI Lee,

 

Sounded "better to my ears in each instance" ... than what?

 

Than the non-MQA files.

[Lee Scoggins]

18 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Better enough to warrant the creation of landfill?

 

Better enough to obsolete present-day DSP-enabled systems?

 

Better enough in a way that a mastering professional cannot achieve with regular tools?

 

 

No way to answer this as those are business questions.

[Lee Scoggins]

10 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

Was that the actual master file?  What was the resolution and source?

 

Was it "better" enough to stop all future innovation in filtering and for the world to pay MQA a royalty for every transaction using this one piece of tech .... for all time?

 

Brian,

 

I think you have to evaluate the sonic merits and business elements separately.  It is possible that MQA sounds better and the business elements are not good in terms of licensing, etc.  It is possible the sonic merits are good and there are benefits to the business aspects.  It is possible that none of it is good.  There is, unfortunately no objective way to score the business pluses and minuses.  Everyone will have an opinion.

 

From a business standpoint, it might even be a trade-off.  For instance, MQA may need licensing fees to enforce standards but those standards may be beneficial.  Or it could be an evil DRM scheme too.  I don't have enough data to have an informed opinion yet.

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

9 hours ago, firedog said:

Lee came here with a reasonable post and obviously good intentions. Why do we have to answer him with such a tone?  I'm sorry, there's and edge to this post that isn't warranted.

Do we have to be negative to every industry professional that posts here and drive them away?

 

Thanks Firedog.  I can only promise I will do my best here to provide an honest opinion.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 hours ago, rwdvis said:

This is an obvious setup.  Pretending to be undecided, neutral and unbiased.  I’ll bet a million he comes back with a positive and glowing assessment of MQA.  It’s already been scripted.  Don't be so gullible, people.

 

“exploring the pros and cons”

"I have not fully made up my mind on MQA."

 

LOL.

 

I am honestly undecided based on what I have heard and what I have read.  If you don't believe that then I am not sure there is anything I can do to convince you.

 

One reason I don't want to rush to judgment is that I am still learning as a recording professional what the new work flow for engineers will be like.  Even my friend Mehow at Mytek is still working on that.  One thing MQA has to do, imho, for success is get a workflow that professionals can use without too much inconvenience.

 

Also, the whole are of DRM versus enforcing a standard is a bit murky to me but I will dig deeper on that and share what I learn as long as folks here show some respect.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Some feedback for the thread regarding the new iFi iDSD Nano BL (with MQA support)

 

According to the new errata on the iFi Nano BL firmware download page:

 

 

If I'm reading this right, all PCM is upsampled to DXD internally, and the sample rate indicator will only now glow white for all PCM.  Seems like the product manager needs to have a discussion with the firmware developers about the usefulness of that light.  I was under the impression that all iFi DACs upsampled PCM internally (for the filters), but still managed to have a useful indicator for the input sample rate.  Some may see this as a nit, ok.  It's different than the other iFi DACs.

 

MQA works with both the Tidal app and Audirvana, but I find that after switching to MQA from PCM, it's often necessary to restart MQA playback (with the "start from the beginning" button) for any audio to come out of the DAC (hopefully this will improve with better firmware).  Sometimes MQA decoding doesn't kick in right (the DAC plays undecoded MQA with a white light) and the "start from the beginning" trick works here and turns the light magenta.

 

Having spent some time to reacquaint myself with the current MQA landscape, I have to say that "vaporware" is an apt descriptor.  As far as I can tell, the only way to get any significant MQA content in the U.S. is to use Tidal (I am a HiFi subscriber) and use the Tidal desktop app.  I was stunned to discover that after the long delayed AQ Dragonfly MQA-enabled firmware was released, there is still no way to play Tidal MQA on the mobile app.

 

MQA will ultimately be at the mercy of software/firmware developers to achieve any real market penetration.  The long absence of a mobile solution is rather glaring IMHO.  The Tidal Desktop App is underwhelming.  Still no way to search for MQA content.

 

Samuel,

 

I am trying to get an upgraded license to Amarra Luxe so I can do MQA playback that way.  I am also still setting up a NAS drive for my PS Audio Directstream Network Bridge.  Hopefully that will be ready by Christmas.  Glad to hear Audirvana is there already.

[Lee Scoggins]

11 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

Was that the actual master file?  What was the resolution and source?

 

Was it "better" enough to stop all future innovation in filtering and for the world to pay MQA a royalty for every transaction using this one piece of tech .... for all time?

 

The sources for the LA Show were 24/88 and 24/96 files of some (mostly 2/4-track) recordings Peter McGrath did of various classical orchestras and ensembles.  I confirmed with Wilson Audio (was just there for a factory tour) where Peter works that the files played were the raw hirez files and the MQA-encoded files.  Volume was level matched at the demo.  Equipment was a T+A integrated amplifier driving Wilson Audio Alexx speakers.  MQA source was the top of the line Meridian Audio cd player and dac.  Equipment was set up by Sunil Merchant, a friend of mine, who has a popular dealership in Covina.  "Sunny" also confirmed to me there was no "monkey business" done on the demo.

[Lee Scoggins]

45 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Lee

 

While I'm quite skeptical of MQA, I'm doing my best to answer the "but what does it sound like?" question.  Setting aside all the well discussed anti-consumer and dubious technical aspects, I'm most perplexed about how much MQA needs Tidal to be successful.  I have been a Tidal subscriber since before the Jay Z acquisition.  When I use Roon, Tidal is pretty good, but not quite awesome.  Their CDN has issues from time to time (this is seen in Roon as "this title is currently unavailable" that eventually clears).  But I'm at a complete loss why there isn't a straight forward way to see all the MQA titles there.  I'm well aware of the spread sheets that private enthusiasts are keeping, and I've used them to discover new MQA content.  But any audiophile product that requires me to run Excel or Google Docs to use is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.

 

Like many/most computer-centric audiophiles, I have way more software than I need to listen to music.  Audirvana, Roon, HQPlayer, JRiver, Foobar, and others I probably forgot.  When/if Roon gets MQA support, I might settle down to just that (and HQPlayer for my DSD DACs).  But even as we get close to the end of 2017, MQA is still something like vaporware.  Drawing on my recollection of the HDCD rollout from last decade (I know that MQA and HDCD are vastly different from a technical and consumer standpoint), MQA is very far behind the curve at this point.

 

PS: Regarding NAS, I'm a big fan of FreeNAS.  While I concede it's more expensive than Synology, I think it's worth the extra money.  Lots of flexibility there that just doesn't exist in Synology.

 

 

Good info.  I will look into FreeNAS.

[Lee Scoggins]

39 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I think it is not too hard to score business effect on consumers, at least some of the minuses:

- Severely restricts legal use of the purchased content

- No assurance about long-term usability of the technology

- Licensing costs will be paid by the consumer in the end

- Gives a single entity broad (end-to-end) point of control

 

Standard FLAC doesn't have any of these minuses.

 

Fair points but I think FLAC is not a great analogy as it does not include a process for improving such as the apodizing filters.

[Lee Scoggins]

43 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

So everyone at the demo had a financial stake in a positive outcome, and that does not give you pause?

It is really hard to take you seriously at this point. 

 

Again with the personal attacks like you did on Hoffman which got the thread locked.  Can you please drop these attacks because we simply have different opinions?

 

At an audio show, the financial stake is to sell gear.  Peter and Sunny are selling Wilson speakers and ARC/T+A gear.  They don't have a stake in selling MQA.  Peter is world famous in many circles for the quality of his recordings.  Wilson Alexx speakers are known for their resolution and overall quality.  Bob probably figured this would make for some good demo sound.  

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Ridiculous reply ."They don't have a stake in selling MQA."  This really strips you of any credibility.

 

A Meridian dealer, who sells MQA compatible gear has no stake? Getting Wilson speakers heard in a public setting..no benefit there?  Ok.  Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?

 

MQA won't sell Wilson speakers.  MQA could I guess sell some more Meridian players.  But lacking any evidence of foul play, you seem to be assuming the worst of the participants with no evidence to back it up.

[Lee Scoggins]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always thought HDCDs offered redbook quality on standard players and "enhanced" quality on HDCD players. I don't believe there is a version of degraded quality, but I could be wrong.

 

That is correct.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

Find a post where I said there was foul play.

 

It is all about MOTIVES, and who gains from what.  I know for a FACT that MQA has recruited dealers to shill for MQA.

 

 

 

Can you share what evidence you have when you say "I know for a FACT that MQA has recruited dealers to shill for MQA."?

[Lee Scoggins]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It could have, but that makes zero business sense to me.

 

 

Plus, didn't Stuart formally leave Meridian?

[Lee Scoggins]

49 minutes ago, synn said:

Voting with the wallet is how I have always approached such topics. 

 

I boycotted Sony for years after the rootkit mess. I now have a living room full of Sony shit. I don’t have brand loyalty, I only support companies who aren’t out to shaft people. 

 

I do agree on the general premise that MQA is not a company that has the listeners’ best interest at heart. My wallet will vote accordingly.

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

The difference here between choosing between 2 types of hamburgers or 4 types cars that exist in a world of options based on features, quality, price, etc .... , is that MQA exists to eliminate the other options and dominate global music delivery.  And plants a flag in the dirt that says this idea is the best we can ever do, stop the progress, we have arrived !

 

If we have a conscience, that is alarmingly ambitious and in need of deep study. 

 

If we don't, maybe we make a quip that misses the whole point?

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

[Lee Scoggins]

44 minutes ago, labjr said:

 

I'm not sure either. But do you think MQA would like to be the only game in town? I do. And I think they're trying everything to make that happen. I'm sure labels would love to distribute one format only. If the whole distribution model changes before everyone realizes it's not as good as they say it is, then they may no go back to the old system because audiophile market isn't that large. To me, this isn't one of those things where you say "Give it a chance, you may like it" Personally, I don't care if it is better. There's plenty of other brilliant digital designers that aren't trying to corner the market. 

 

I think in the best scenario, MQA becomes a niche format.  I have not seen any evidence that Bob Stuart and team are "trying to corner the market."

[Lee Scoggins]

21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve never understood the “don’t like it don’t buy it” mentality. It only makes sense if you’re a company who doesn’t want to grow very big, thus leaving other options available. 

 

 

 

I'm using this language more in the sense of no one is forcing one to buy MQA, at least as far as I can tell.  However, it seems some here believe that is the case.

[Lee Scoggins]

40 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Lee

 

"no one is forcing one to buy MQA" is not the point.  MQA is hard at work (and having some measure of success) convincing the major labels that high resolution PCM is a potential piracy threat and MQA should be the only high resolution audio format for consumers.

 

If the record labels believe consumers are ambivalent about this "land grab", MQA could potentially win over PCM.  I hope you agree that would not be good for consumers.

 

If MQA is the only hirez format available then I can see some real issues.

 

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.  I was also planning to talk to Charlie Hansen about his concerns but I learned today that very sadly he passed away yesterday.

[Lee Scoggins]

38 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

44.1 with great hardware has MANY SONIC ADVANTAGES which have been lost in this penis measuring era of listening to air and details and comparing rates,  nothing about music in that.  It's just making some audiophiles feel important about themselves as they are fleeced.

 

 

Brian,

 

As someone who records in various sampling rates in PCM and DSD, I have to differ here.  44.1 can sound very good, however, we have found that 24/88 or higher is essential to getting the timbre of fine violins correct on classical ensemble recordings and it also affects instruments in jazz ensembles.

 

All else being equal (proper mic placement, decent ADC and DAC gear, good cabling and power), a hirez format is still a step up from the best 16/44.1.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, mansr said:

What makes you think that they'll tell you anything but lies? Lies is, after all, all they've told from the outset.

 

What makes you think there is a conspiracy?

[Lee Scoggins]

33 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

 

 

A well made AD at 44.1 beats a shitty AD at 96k.  The engineering is 98% of the sound.

 

96k vs. 44.1 in the Pacific Microsonics = less low end density at 96k, plus you need to SRC down to release it on CD.  This is stupid.  Lesser gear needs higher rates to shine, the best gear does not. 

 

Higher rates alters the presentation, not the quality.  Flavors of the same meal.  Not a better meal.  Sideways by sample rate, assuming great gear.
 

 

Hmm, this is not my experience at all.  Higher sampling rates always improve quality with good mic placement and ADCs.  I’ve done many hirez live to track recordings where we used a  mic cable splitter to compare 24/176 and 24/96 to 16/44.  We have also done this with PCM vs. DSD, using a variety of ADCs.

[Lee Scoggins]

36 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

I am not here to make friends, I'm telling the truth to music lovers and those who seek the best.   Audiophiles are  often caught up in the wrong thing.

 

If you want AUTHENTIC and IN THE STUDIO masters, you need to know the native sample rate of the mastering session.   That is the best quality, the rest is making people money and bolstering egos ..." I have that record on DSD" !   Dumb.

 

Any change from the native sample rate of the session is not authentic to the artist and lesser quality.  

 

Absolutely, always.

 

This is not always true. For instance, in 1991 I ran the tape machine for the McCoy Tyner New York Reunion session. We also used the latest converters to record digitally in 16/44.  Later the tape was mastered to DSD for a Super Audio CD.  While the early LP is very good, in many respects the SACD is my favorite version.

 

As long as one uses care in the mastering, an analog tape can be a great source for CDs and hirez formats.

[Lee Scoggins]

57 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

Gotta side with Brian on this. I don't see what's controversial about what he's saying. We as audiophiles and consumers have very little clue about the professional studio recording and mastering process - and I'm not talking small independent audiophile-oriented stuff that gets cycled through the usual audio magazines. This makes the MQA and streaming talk all the more frustrating because there is ZERO transparency on the source material.

 

You'd think if MQA was so artist and quality focused they would make every effort to reveal that info. I wouldn't be surprised for instance if someone like Rick Rubin or, say, Beck, or even Kanye, worked with 'lower res' (to us) as part of their palatte. Hell yeah I'd want to hear that directly, not some hi-res conversion just to appease a demographic that is convinced the higher the bit rate the better.

 

Rick Rubin is an audiophile who like Synergistic Research gear.