MQA is Vaporware

[Brinkman Ship]

As a Tidal subscriber, I think MQA is a great value. It allows someone like me to have access to high resolution digital music without having to pay $20 plus for downloads, or invest in hard drives.

[Brinkman Ship]

As someone who has been enjoying MQA for the past few months via Tidal, much of what I read here gives me pause.

There are some extremely knowledgeable industry folks who say that MQA is not what it claims to be and is anti consumer...lossy, proprietary, lots of marketing lies etc...

 

I plan on an extended listening comparison with a fellow audiophile who has an impressive hi-rez PCM collection and amazing system. We plan on directly comparing unadulterated hirez FLAC to their MQA counterparts.

 

I will report back.

[Brinkman Ship]

Absolutely...level matching, and picking specific albums where we know the mastering is the same. I have read about various dubious comparisons being done...and I am aware that many who "prefer" MQA have done comparisons against CD streams.

 

I have no agenda, so this will be fun, and I will be able to hopefully hear if MQA is an improvement, a lateral move, or a step down, or maybe even more importantly, if it has a specific sonic stamp, which IMO, would no be a good thing.

 

I will say that MQA was the first source of "hi-rez" streaming..they were first on the market.

[Brinkman Ship]

John Darko's new write up on the Blue Sound Node 2.

https://darko.audio/2018/01/further-travels-with-the-bluesound-node-2/

 

Quite a bit about MQA-

Time to note some of the Node 2’s finer points as they relate to MQA:

1) MQA decoding and rendering only works through the Bluesound app. When streaming via Roon, the 24bit MQA transport file passes through to the Node 2’s internal DAC untouched leaving us to hear (or not) the audible benefits of MQA’s ‘time domain correcting’ pre-process.

 

2) MQA encoded tracks on Tidal can be easily discovered through the Bluesound app since it labels the albums accordingly. Roon, for now, makes no distinction between regular Redbook and MQA albums leaving us to hit play and check the signal path report. The Black Key’s “Lonely Boy” from 2011 album El Caminoidentifies itself as ‘Tidal FLAC 44.1kHz 24 bit 2Ch, MQA 44.1kHz’, for example. The other version of *El Camino* contains ‘Tidal FLAC 44.1kHz 16bit 2Ch’ files.

 

3) The Node 2 outputs decoded and rendered MQA content through its analogue outputs only: namely, its RCA sockets and headphone jack. No MQA pass-through presents for TOSLINK or S/PDIF out. However..

 

4) The Node 2 can be set to bypass the MQA rendering process.. For this to work you have to disable *Tone Controls* for the Node 2 within the Bluesound app and set the *Audio Output Levels* to fixed. The previously greyed out *MQA External DAC* setting becomes available and has to be switched to *yes*. The Node 2 now acts as a standalone streamer, sending the unaltered MQA file to a downstream MQA-capable DAC. I use a Mytek Brooklyn+. MQA-passthrough enabled on the Node 2 and connected to the Mytek via coax or TOSLINK, the Brooklyn+’s MQA logo glows blue upon seeing an MQA stream.

 

[Brinkman Ship]

I don't see any need for blind testing what so ever.

 

It should be no different than comparing different masterings.

 

I regularly do this with various SACDs, digital downloads, and LPs.

 

For instance, there are Sony Japan and Analogue Productions SACDs of

Jeff Beck's mid 70s titles. I simply play both and decide which I like better.

 

It is not that big a deal.

[Brinkman Ship]

31 minutes ago, firedog said:

It is very different. When  you compare 2 masterings you know they are different and pick which one you like. The truth is, you really should match volumes because unless you do, you don’t know if the volume difference is  what made you prefer one.

 

But it doesn’t really matter b/c you aren’t making a general conclusion about a format. 

 

The MQA thing is different. MQA says they can take a hi-res master and process it so that their version sounds superior to the original and that even unfolded it will sound superior to the CD version.

 

So in this case you are deciding whether a format\system is superior. So one, you need to be comaparing 2 vesions made from the same master. And two, you do need to volume level. Otherwise you don’t know what you are comparing. 

 

If you want to decide about MQA as a format vs standard hi-res, you need to eliminate variables other than the MQA processing itself. Otherwise you are just comparing how you react to volume levels and/or 2 actually different sounding masters, but you aren’t evaluating the MQA process itself. 

 

As far as blind testing, if you think it is pointless I don’t have much to say to you. But whatever conclusion you come to without it is pretty worthless to anyone else. It’s fine if you want to listen acc’d to your own expectation biases; just don’t claim that your conclusions have any general meaning that applies to anyone else.

It really is not that complicated...

 

MQA is just a PCM variant...

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

It's lossy nature makes it the hi-rez version of mp3.

Yes, I concede it is lossy based on the measurements I have seen and Stuart's own admission.

 

We shall see what my ears tell me.

[Brinkman Ship]

8 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

And what if both are totally identical, except for a difference of 0.5dB in level?

Experienced listeners will not be fooled or swayed by this. Seriously.

[Brinkman Ship]

9 hours ago, firedog said:

Your statement is a non-sequitur  and has nothing to do with the issue of how to compare and evaluate 2 formats.

What is inaccurate about this? MQA is simply PCM with proprietary filtering.

[Brinkman Ship]

12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

No it is not. If you actually read articles by Benchmark and others, who actually went through the Patents on MQA, if is NOT just PCM with proprietary filters. 

Ok, I am doing all the research required. I am only half in with MQA. There are things I like and things I am hearing about

that if true, are distasteful.

[Brinkman Ship]

57 minutes ago, firedog said:

I understand that you are starting to see some of the issues: 

 

The fact that both are PCM compatible is irrelevant and means nothing. "PCM" is LPCM or Linear and a lossless  representation of what's on a CD. MQA isn't technically PCM (as I understand it) because it is a compressed lossy format. Just like mp3, which is also 16/44.1 compatible but is lossy and compressed. 

 

And BTW, it's well established that 0.2db volume differences are extemely difficult to detect but do change our perception of playback quality. 

If I understand correctly, MQA is lossy in that it discards bits. But as far as I know it is not lossy in the frequency domain.

[Brinkman Ship]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi @Brinkman Ship, Welcome to CA. Or, should I say welcome back to CA or welcome to CA under a new name?

 

Based on your posts, your registered email address (mqatruth@<domain>.com), and the fact you're obscuring your physical location pretty well (IP addresses from all over the world, just in the last few hours), I'm quite suspicious of you. It appears you have an agenda and/or something to hide. 

 

I don't mind anyone hiding his location or using an email address such as yours, but given the volatility of this topic, it seems you are hear for reasons other than to truly discuss MQA with the community.

 

Please be careful and follow the rules.

Suspicious of what? I joined here to specifically participate in this thread.

 

I have my issues with MQA, but I am also trying to understand all the venom spewed towards it.

 

The email i created was so I could keep track of this forum and its posts. No malicious intent.

[Brinkman Ship]

27 minutes ago, esldude said:

Okay. I am no expert, but maybe can give a summary others can add to or correct.

 

MQA is lossy.  For quite awhile they pretended it wasn't or were vague. 

 

MQA purports to be better quality than hirez originals.  

 

MQA claimed to authenticate you were getting the master, and it does not. 

 

MQA claimed quite a bit of new innovative use of the digital medium fixing "blur".  Subsequent investigation uncovers it can't do anything over 96 khz, it simply oversamples.  It does unfold to 96 khz from 44 or 48 khz, but the extra stuff after the unfold is lossy in encoding. It uses filters that allow some aliasing.  

 

It appears to only have 17 bits of resolution. 

 

Unencoded it reduces quality of the track to maybe 13 bits.  

 

There are a few other issues. 

 

My main complaint is it can function as DRM.  And even if never used that way it prevents anyone from using digital room correction or speaker correction.  The latter is a big boon to performance.  Offset against a questionable improvement brought by MQA it makes MQA a non-starter for many.  

 

There is plenty more, but that should be a good start for you. 

Thank you for the summary.

 

So if take at face value all of the information above is correct, why have I not read about any of this in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound, or DAR, or Audiostream?

 

And why have they all consistently said it sounded *better* than the master file?

[Brinkman Ship]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

So you did not read my article?

 

https://darko.audio/2017/07/kih-46-mqas-missing-link/

Thanks for link. And thanks to mansr for links too.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 hours ago, beetlemania said:

Great questions! (Don't know why you'd take anything in TAS at face value)

 

You might also read these sources:

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

 

http://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

 

http://fairhedon.com/2017/11/05/an-interview-with-mastering-engineer-brian-lucey/

 

 

http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/954-myriad-questions-about-mqa

 

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/10/mqa-final-final-comment-simply-put-why.html

 

 

Thanks a bunch. Very, very interesting reading.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

Gives a new meaning to "face value": MQA is between 15 and 17 bits:
 

 

Uncle Bob also laughs at 24 and 32 bit in the first minutes.

Hmmmmmm.

[Brinkman Ship]

54 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Er, https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-2-fold

https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-some-claims-examined

 

Perhaps you missed these articles?

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

With all due respect, why were pieces like this not published 2 years ago or more? I can't think of

a single reason why not except for relentless outside pressure.

[Brinkman Ship]

I still say that in some way MQA offers high value to listeners who have not invested in hi rez digital libraries, expensive NAS units, and hard drives. If MQA albums are starting with hirez masters and there is some bits thrown out, I am not sure that is a deal killer.

[Brinkman Ship]

I ask the anti MQA brigade..why did Tidal, which has 2 million CD quality albums to stream, and the labels, sign contracts with MQA if it has so many supposed negatives? I ask for serious replies.

[Brinkman Ship]

32 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

From the errors and misunderstandings in his most recent MQA articles I doubt Mr Austin is qualified for such a discussion. In other words, Bob will wind Jim around his finger, and Jim will spread the good news and subsequently will declare all critique invalid.

 

Can you point out specifically what errors and misunderstandings Mr. Austin was guilty of in his articles..I believe there was Part One and Two?

[Brinkman Ship]

6 hours ago, FredericV said:

This is the classical fanboy / shill argument, also used by the now banned Peter Veth. MQA does not offer this value, but streaming services do.

You could say the exact same about Qobuz: it offers true highres (lossless, not lossy like MQA) and customers don't have to invest in their own library / hardware.

 

US residents have had difficulty signing up for Qobuz...secondly, the Tidal interface is far superior.

 

Qobuz is also close to $200 a year more.

[Brinkman Ship]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

But that ignores the simple fact that the hi-rez masters can be streamed; or if bandwidth is thought to be an issue, a properly dithered 18/96 version of a 24/96 hi-res master is smaller than the equivalent MQA file and throws out less bits. 

 

So again, why do we need a closed; proprietary format?

What if it does actually sound better?

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

It would easier to point out what he got right as that amounts to just about nothing.

That is an non answer.Specifics please?

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Actually the Qobuz app IMO is far superior to the Tidal interface.

 

And worth every penny if you want real high resolution or regular cd lossless with the option to buy high res at a discount.  Tidal really offers nothing in comparison.

I believe Tidal has a far greater Redbook CD catalog. Unless I am mistaken.

[Brinkman Ship]

I see quite a bit of pushback in the comments sections of Austin's articles. I wonder how

many Mr. Atkinson purged.