MQA is Vaporware

[Hugo9000]

The acquisition probably explains the (partial) shift on MQA coverage at S-phile.  Hasn't Paul Miller been critical of MQA's claims for quite a while now?

[Hugo9000]

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I was not going to respond to all these speculations about the the recent sale and MQA but this one is easy.  The writers were informed about this sale only hours before it was announced in public.  It is illogical to think that it could have influenced statements already in print.  

Choosing that recent "As We See It" was an editorial decision, you commented that the writers were informed only hours before the public announcement.  

 

As far as illogical thinking goes, there is nothing in my brief post to suggest the possibility of influence on things that have already occurred.  lol

 

The only shift was in choosing that last piece, and publishing the accompanying letters, as far as I'm aware.  No writers at S-phile have changed positions on MQA, have they?

 

I would say that It's illogical to think that the EDITOR of a publication would find out with no notice.  Unless he is not respected at all by any of the responsible parties to the sale.

[Hugo9000]

37 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Sheesh!  AWSI was written by Jon Iverson and, while I do not know with certainty that he was completely unaware of the impending sale, the editor's decision to publish it is not germane since he has always encouraged individual and, even, controversial contributions.

Yes, I have.

It is possible.  Stereophile has been sold by one publisher to another several times over the decades and I suspect that some have been without prior editorial notice. 

 

I wasn't suggesting anything nefarious.  I don't necesarily agree with JA on much (other than his positive comments through the years about some KEF loudspeakers haha!--my favorite speaker company along with the defunct Apogee), but I don't have any reason to question his professional integrity.  I don't think that suggesting that an editor might broaden an issue by publishing a divergent opinion, either because it will serve the readers of that publication, or to serve a publisher's or prospective new publisher's wish for a broader viewpoint, is any sort of indictment of the editor.  Isn't that part of an editor's job?  Now, if JA himself had penned an editorial that was a sudden and unexplained about-face, that might be a bit different, but that's not what has happened.  He published a "guest" editorial with a different viewpoint. 

 

 

Edited to add:  In that first post that you replied to, I should have said "possibly," instead of "probably," however, as it's certainly possible that the timing is merely coincidental.  Or, if there was any sort of "cause and effect," it could have been the reverse:  that the new buyer chose to make the purchase partly because of the recent broadening of coverage on a contentious topic.

 

Also to add:  I was under the impression that you personally had never cared for MQA, so I wasn't aware that you had changed your views on it.  You certainly have never beat the drum for MQA, unless I'm very much mistaken!

[Hugo9000]

20 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Interesting.  Some rather straight talk about MQA without coming out an saying "its not worth it"  (except they do at the end, but not in a "never ever" sort of way  ).

 

Just a quibble, but they do not get dithering right do they (i.e. it is not "filtered out")?

 

What is KEF's market share/position vis-a-vis the home "installation" market?  I ask because of the pattern.  The closer you are as a company (in terms of who your customers are) to Audiophiledom, the more likely you are implement MQA.  I am thinking of the likes of dCS, Mytek, and PS Audio (even though the did it reluctantly).  The likes of Benchmark (whose foundation is in the pro audio world right?), Schiit (the value oriented, objectivist leaning HP crowd), and such tend to honestly point out drawbacks of MQA.  Linn might be an anomaly, but then they run a real record label as well.

 

I think of KEF as an "audiophile" company, but maybe their position in the wider "installation" market gives them a bit of perspective??

Engineering/science have always been important in the history of KEF.  Materials science for drivers, computer modeling and testing, etc.  The "Reference" series speakers of old were matched not only to the factory reference for each model, but drivers for all loudspeakers sold were also pair-matched to within .5 dB across the frequency range, with test data kept on file in case a customer might need a replacement driver down the road.  I don't know if the current "Reference" series is done the same way, but note that they put a lot of engineering and testing into current models such as the Blade/Blade 2/LS50, etc.

 

In addition to their use of good engineering principles and testing, they have always had models with a very high value:cost ratio, so putting money into something questionable like MQA licenses probably isn't likely based on their history, unless they perceive that consumers actually demand that "feature."

 

I've been a fan of KEF since I first heard the Reference 107 loudspeakers during my freshman year at University in the fall of 1987.

[Hugo9000]

I'm curious if anyone with the technical chops has compared the HDCD process to MQA encoding.  It sounds as though the "deblurring" thing is a red herring to distract from the idea that everything about MQA is copied from the HDCD process and its patented technology.  In the case of HDCD, it was supposed to encode 20 bits of resolution into a 16 bit format, and there was also a claim of backward compatibility, but ignoring the negative effects on accuracy and transparency if the decoding (or unfolding haha) did not take place.

 

HDCD was also included, eventually, on DAC chips from several manufacturers, as MQA now will be by ESS (ESS, by the way, sounds as bad as MQA/Meridian/BS with their inflation of their own importance to tech through the years.  ESS has nothing historically on Burr Brown, TI, and several others, even if their current DACs might be amazing.  My only personal experience with ESS is in my cheapo ($85) SMSL iDEA which I use with my KEF M400 headphones--also cheapo, purchased them on Black Friday last year for $79 lol--which sound lovely together haha).

[Hugo9000]

Just as an aside, as I sit here pondering various matters and listening to veils being lifted in Vänskä's glorious Mahler Das Lied von der Erde (BIS CD-681) on my state of the art, $1 000 000 sound system featuring KEF Muon loudspeakers, I wonder why we never see photos of equipment under review in situ in the writer's own listening space.  It always seems to be a token glamour shot provided by the manufacturer. 

 

 

/s lol

 

Edited to add:  I can recall one Hi-Fi writer who has shared pics at least occasionally, and there is that foul-mouthed person with the bad temper who likes turntables with videos of his messy home and all of that expensive equipment...  lol

 

[Hugo9000]

So, I was thinking back to the days of SACD/DSD, and all of its promises.  I can't tell you to this day if it is actually an improvement over high resolution PCM or not, or even if the technology is truly superior even to standard CD.  Regarding the higher frequency improvements that are/were claimed, I cannot judge at all, as my own hearing starts to drop off pretty sharply at around 15kHz, and is nonexistent just above 16kHz (I'm 49, so that's probably not too horrible, all things considered).  However, I believe I can say that it does not seem to harm fidelity, and there was a definite benefit to some consumers--RCA's Living Stereo Hybrid SACD project.  It allowed for the actual 3 channels of sound in the session masters to be heard by consumers via the surround layer of the SACD, so that was one benefit (for those recordings made in 3 channel, that is).

 

However, I believe that the greatest benefit was simply the method used in remastering the material for the new format.  For the first time, RCA went back to the session tapes for Leontyne Price's Madama Butterfly recording.  In the LP releases, cassette tapes, the initial RCA Red Seal CD set, and even the first CD remaster issued with the "Living Stereo" label, there is a very audible and harsh glitch as Mme Price sings the name "Yamadori" (Cio-cio San's wealthy suitor).  Apparently, this glitch existed in everything other than the actual 3-track session tapes, as RCA went back to the first stereo "submaster" or whatever you'd call it on all of the prior releases.  That was a flaw that bothered me for decades, and I had practically given up hope of a fix until I first read about the SACD project, and the methods being used by Soundmirror for RCA/Sony.

 

I remembered that I first read details about the process in the pages of Stereophile, but I couldn't recall the writer of the article.  Today I searched for information on Soundmirror, and found a link to the article in question.  I suppose no one should be surprised at who it was that gave the tech a detailed investigation, and provided interesting and valuable information to at least one music fan/audiophile (me! lol):  Kal Rubinson!  So the whole thing points up a few key differences to me:

 

1) A writer who seems to care about the subject as well as his readership, and who tries to write informatively about it

2) Companies being open to investigation, and inviting/allowing a journalist to witness and experience the process itself, even though it is a patented technology that the company would like to make into a new standard, industry-wide

3) Actual research and dedication to finding the session tapes (not just some vague talk of "masters" whether they mean stereo master, session master, the EQ'd for LP master, whatever), using authentic and properly rebuilt tape machines to play back those session tapes for the new recording process, research to determine the correct EQ for those sessions, etc, etc, etc.

4) Something that is actually new, in the case of SACD, extra channels of audio information, allowing for 3 track as in many original RCA recordings from the "Golden Age," and up to 5 channels, as well as a standard that allowed a fully backward compatible CD layer, with no compromise compared to regular CD (i.e. no need for special equipment or processing required, or to put it another way, no "crippling" of the fidelity of the CD layer itself).

 

Contrast all of that to MQA.  Closed, proprietary, completely secretive about what is really done or not done in the process.  Zero transparency, no actual engagement by anyone involved in the tech (does it even deserve to be called "technology?"  I don't know...) with experts or the curious or even with the press, other than giving them assurances that it's all very wonderful and aboveboard.  Perhaps it is.  But why not allow selected people to witness/experience the process, as a matter of pride of achievement, if not merely to satisfy critics or a distrustful public?  It still has full legal protection as "Intellectual Property," just as Sony and company were protected with regard to SACD/DSD.

 

Anyway, a few thoughts on the matter, as I prepare to listen to Leontyne Price's Madama Butterfly on SACD yet again!

 

 

If anyone is curious, here is a bit from Kalman Rubinson from 2005:

 

Music in the Round #11

[Hugo9000]

BBC and KEF back in 1980 at the Edinburgh Music Festival:

 

https://www.kefdirect.com/kef-and-the-edinburgh-festival-a-technical-achievement-way-ahead-of-its-time

 

I think this experiment was a lot more interesting! 

[Hugo9000]

Here you go:

 

 

?

[Hugo9000]

42 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

first, this rubbish.... 

 

Reissue in Hi-Res CD format (UHQCD format x MQA technology). Features the 192kHz/24bit DSD master in 2014, using UK original master tapes. The DSD master is available in 352.8kHz/24bit high resolution (perfect for MQA-enabled audio players). Comes with lyrics and a description. Green color label coating. Comes in a slim case packaging. *The disc can also be played on regular CD players in UHQCD 44.1kHz/16bit resolution. However, MQA-enabled hardware/software is necessary to harness the full potential of this Hi-Res CD.

 

 

OMG, we finally see actual "deblurring!"  But it's not from MQA, it's the result of going from CD to HQCD, and then even more deblurring by going to UHQCD!  Just look at those waveforms in the second image you uploaded!  WOW!

[Hugo9000]

I was perusing a thread on MQA at WBF, and someone quoted JA:

 

"My analyses comparing the spectrum of the original WAV file with that of the decoded MQA version did indeed prove that MQA's "music origami" worked, the spectra of the original WAV file and the decoded MQA version overlaying one another exactly up to the 44.1kHz Nyquist frequency of the original recording."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa#5hxkIqAyG5X5BgVH.99

 

In the article, JA goes into a bit more regarding the "origami," and concludes:

"Case proved for the music origami aspect of MQA, I feel. However, the only way of testing the second claim—of MQA's correction of time-domain errors—is through listening."

 

Here is my question:  If the spectra of the original WAV file overlay exactly with the decoded MQA version up to the 44.1kHz Nyquist frequency of the original recording, then how is it possible for there to be any correction of time-domain errors?  If the overlays are exact, then if there were time-domain errors in the original, wouldn't they have to be present in the decoded MQA version as well?  Use of the word exactly doesn't leave any wiggle room.  How would a listening test show time-domain errors when his spectral analyses showed an exact overlay up to 44.1kHz.  And another question:  How can he posit that the only way of testing MQA'a claim of correction of time-domain errors is through listening?  His "I feel" was a qualifier for his statement about proving the case for the music "origami."

 

Anywho.  This has probably been discussed already, but I don't recall coming across these points before.
 

[Hugo9000]

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Archie and Paul Miller proved there is aliasing and artifacts. Poor JA simply did not have the chops to do proper measurements

and he was shown up. Not much more to say about it.

 

The only other explanation is that he had no intention of doing proper measurements in order to show MQA as a viable

technology.

 

A truly humiliating episode in Stereophile's history.

Yes, I read Paul Miller's articles and Archimago's, my point was that if one accepts JA's measurements as he described them, wouldn't that have "proved" that the assertion of any sort of time-domain correction wasn't possible?  So he used the measurement to "prove" one aspect, but in the process, (unintentionally) debunked the other aspect.  Was he aware of the contradiction, and is that why he proceeded to declare that "listening" was the "only" way to test the time-domain aspect?

[Hugo9000]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

 

A graphed FFT of a piece of music, mostly likely averaged over many seconds, is a very crude measure, whereas the fabled time domain correction, if present at all, is extremely subtle and will be totally invisible on such a graph.

Would you say that it is correct to use a term like "exact" or "exact match" between two such very crude measurements?  And to conclude that a crude measurement is "proof" of anything?

[Hugo9000]

Hmm.

[Hugo9000]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

How is that even remotely topical for this thread? Are you trying to deliberately derail it, or do you genuinely not understand the concept of a thread topic?

It could be topical to MQA, if he is delicately hinting that some or all of his "setup" was what they called "promotional consideration" on those TV game shows and talk shows of old (perhaps they still do this, but I haven't watched such crap in decades haha!).

[Hugo9000]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Ralf, I use the Synergistic Research HFTs for room acoustics and it works well.  If you look closely, you will see them properly place in a grid patter on the walls, ceiling, and equipment & record racks.

 

I'm not sure what you are basing the "out of all proportion" comment on.  Peter said it was one of the better rooms had heard recently.  He is not one to make such comments lightly.

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

We can certainly leave the pejoratives out of it. So I will just say your experience is at variance with mine.

 

@Rt66indierock's recent comment about changing the sound of the master might be a key here: I have heard MQA sound better than Redbook or hi res, but only where the master was obviously different.

 

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

But in my last two demos, there were no mastering differences and I heard a clear improvement.

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, that's the part of your experience that's at variance with mine.  ?

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Those are those thimbles full of "nano technology" if I am not mistaken...

 

LOL!  ?

And FINALLY we arrive at the crucial, missing piece of the puzzle!

 

So, all of you "science-y-type" folks and logical thinkers would never have dreamed of trying those marvelous HFTs with MQA, because:

a)  Well, duh, they were obviously developed and tuned to correct defects in pre-MQA audio technology, so who in his right mind would dream they could actually work correctly in conjunction with the deblurring and other corrective effects of MQA

b)  They didn't actually work with the pre-MQA technology that they were supposed to work with, so most of you just gave up on the things and put them completely out of mind ages ago

 

This is where it takes someone who thinks outside the box, or an idiot savant or something, who will just do things intuitively, disregarding the strictures of scientific method and logic and investigative protocols, rather like the serendipitous turn of events in those old and beloved commercials wherein a happy accident results from "you got chocolate in my peanut butter"/"you got your peanut butter on my chocolate."  Or like that time when Upjohn created minoxidil to treat ulcers, but found that while it was useless against ulcers, it was a great vasodilator when tested on dogs, so began trials to use it for hypertension, and then found that the only thing it was actually good for was certain types of hair regrowth, giving vain and insecure men the miracle that we know as Rogaine.

 

TL;DR:  Combine the deblurring effect of MQA with series 2 Wilson whatever-that-model-is (series 1 won't cut it) and its special time alignment with HFT's that by accident are tuned perfectly to enhance the MQA effect, and you get the miracle that Lee has been beating his head against the wall to share with us here.  Not just synergistic, but serendipitous!  Resulting truly in the birth of a new world!

[Hugo9000]

What does HFT stand for?  Huckster Frequency Thimbles?  I'm just guessing here, can't be arsed to google it.

 

Similarly to extended "break in," which always results in positive changes over time, I'm astonished that these "devices" are "smart" enough to remove sonic defects, while leaving the actual musical information untouched.  Are there nanites inside, that are working collectively (like a hive mind?) to analyze the sound waves and compare against a database of musical scores and engineering/production notes/consulting the original artists to ensure that only the correct sound waves make it through to the listener?

[Hugo9000]

16 hours ago, Jud said:

 

It was years ago, so I don't have a link and don't remember the product. Perhaps Ted does, since it apparently caused him to change web copy.

 

 

I was in a dealer's listening room that had the HFTs.  Didn't hear anything notable, though the dealer was excited about them at the time.  A couple of months later they were gone, unremarked by the dealer.  I didn't notice a change in the room's sound.

 

Apologies for the OT, but I think the relationship between MQA and the Synergistic marketing is that both require a "willing suspension of disbelief" that to my mind isn't borne out by my listening experience or any data I've seen. (MQA at least does provably alter the signal.)

Here is the article:

https://www.audiostream.com/content/synergistic-research-high-frequency-transducer-and-frequency-equalizer

 

and your comment:

https://www.audiostream.com/comment/503310#comment-503310

 

I just googled "audiostream synergistic research quantum tunneling" and there it was

[Hugo9000]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 What if Lee was able to demonstrate with a high statistical probability through his own system under non sighted conditions that he could identify and actually preferred the MQA version ?

 

Calling others confidence men because you don't agree with them is going way too far without any kind of proof other than theoretical.

 

N.B.

 I don't want or feel the need for need MQA either !

Someone might be able to identify the MQA version 100% of the time (and prove that to others during blind testing), but we would only have his word for it that he actually preferred it.  He might hate the MQA version or know that it is NOT faithful to the master/recording session/artist's intent, but have other (nefarious) reasons to say that it's superior in order to attempt to influence others to accept MQA.

 

If that someone appears to be a shill, there is no reason for anyone to accept that person's stated subjective evaluation/preference, even if we might accept the objective part regarding their ability to identify MQA 100% of the time.

 

(This would apply to anyone in such circumstances, readers can make up their own minds if they believe Lee is impartial or has good taste/musical discernment and pushes MQA out of a genuine love of it and desire to share that with the entire world (I don't think his post count on various fora quite equals a message to each of the 7 billion+ on the planet yet, so this might be slightly hyperbolic) or out of purely venal reasons or a combination thereof.)

[Hugo9000]

 

27 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I wasn't going after Pro-Tools so much as the engineers who just record in 24/44 or 24/48.  Joe Palmaccio in Nashville and many others have been railing about this for over 10 years.  As someone who likes the best possible sound, I have been discussing this on the Hoffman board for a similarly long period of time.  My view is that 24/96 or better is ideal.

 

I believe the majority of recordings by BIS have been done in 24/44.1, and I'd say that they are the most consistently spectacular label for sound quality, out of my collection of 3,000+ classical CDs/SACDs (those are the ones I currently own, I've heard thousands more recordings over the years).  So I find it laughable when anyone claims that 24/96 or higher is inherently superior for music, or that 24/44.1 is inherently bad.  I don't see anything wrong in using 24/192, but I find Robert von Bahr's reasoning regarding his choices for BIS and his label's track record of beautifully recorded performances to be quite persuasive.

 

Better quality material, better performers, better engineers who don't participate in loudness wars, careful mastering, etc. are far more important than a particular format or resolution in my opinion.  I wouldn't be surprised if BIS could get more out of 16/44.1 than most other labels could dream of getting out of DXD.  I'd love to see a contest between record labels and engineers using the same venue and ensemble and music selections for a true comparison of absolute abilities.

[Hugo9000]

13 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Remember that MQA mentioned "key opinion maker" in their financial report.

So why not translate that to "influencer marketing" to use the correct term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influencer_marketing

 

 

Our well known opinion maker endorses MQA, and also provides testimonials, so by law he is obligated to disclose brand information. Do the needful

We need Raymond Reddington to take down the MQA Cabal haha!  (Sorry, I've been binge-watching The Blacklist!  )

[Hugo9000]

11 minutes ago, firedog said:

I don't think so. He'd gain kill the principals, gain control and really take over the market (thru threats/blackmail) and then we really would be stuck only with MQA. 

I think he'd draw the line at pushing MQA.  He does have a moral code, you know!  

[Hugo9000]

25 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I also find DSD the best digital based on split mic feed testing.  DSD sounds like music.

I agree that it's superior to MQA.  But perhaps you didn't mean to let that slip?  lol

[Hugo9000]

@The Computer Audiophile With regard to SACD, Sony gave "white glove" treatment to 54 RCA Living Stereo releases on Hybrid SACD.  There were supposedly plans to continue the series, but sales were inadequate or whoever at Sony loved classical music died or otherwise moved on, or it was a casualty of the Sony-Toshiba War for HD Video.  I think the last batch of titles in the Living Stereo SACD project were released in late 2006, so it's likely that Sony decided to divert funds from that project to help bankroll the push for Blu-ray over Toshiba's HD DVD.  I don't believe any other older (originally analogue) recordings from any other labels received any special treatment, but since SACD was a Sony format, it made sense for them to use their most prestigious back-catalogue items to promote it.

 

Of course, other labels used the format to release completely new recordings, with the benefit of multichannel.  Most are Hybrid SACD, so the benefits of superior mastering translate to better than average quality sonics on the CD layer, which owners could rip to hard drives just like any regular CD.  So there's that haha  Of course every collector of SACDs is aware that not all were pure DSD on the digital end, many or most were converted from some form of PCM.

 

At any rate, I personally wouldn't compare Sony to MQA, as Sony has at least provided some actual value to music lovers through the decades with technology, music, and audio equipment.  MQA has provided nothing but empty promises (white glove, documenting and analyzing the original equipment chain and applying individualized corrections, etc.) and dishonest realities.

 

 

[Hugo9000]

6 hours ago, FredericV said:

OMG facebook is thinking this reply is spam, in a topic where Mark Waldrep is also present:

 

Now some junkie is going to review my post:
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/02/25/2247249/facebook-moderators-are-routinely-high-and-joke-about-suicide-to-cope-with-job-says-report

 

You probably triggered this from facebook by using the words "hack," "data," and "scam," following those words with a link haha!