MQA is Vaporware

[beetlemania]

38 minutes ago, labjr said:

If DSD is so transparent, why do we need anything else?

 

Because MQA is BETTER than the master tapes?

[beetlemania]

4 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

All kidding aside ... nothing is better than a master, ever.

 

Yes, I didn't use the sarcasm font 'cuz I thought it was plainly silly.

5 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

The commercial games used to create fear and thus to sell high res to music are all corrupt.  The master is what it is.   I print at 44.1 with the Pacific Microsonics AD.  This is not inferior to 96k or higher in a modern piece.   Production CHOICES are more important than slices per second and cutoffs above human hearing.

I mostly agree . . . if there's a 24-bit file of the same master I find a small but worthwhile sonic difference compared to CD resolution - not so much "more information" but "more relaxed and musical". Thanks for stopping by. Many insiders end up getting flamed around here (and on other fora) and quit visiting after too much abuse . . . Best wishes.

[beetlemania]

I found this section of the fairhedon interview especially interesting:

 

Quote

It’s definitely a lossy codec, that was clear. And like Mastered for iTunes or any reduction scheme the losses are in critically important areas.    Where as mastered for iTunes is harmonically cold and loses some low volume/low end information, actually altering the groove to make everything sound like a nerdy white wedding band, MQA brightens the high-mids in the Mid section while thinning the low-mids on the Sides. There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing,  If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle.

 

So, even if we accept that MQA comparisons have used the same master (a dubious assumption), this might explains some people's preference for MQA . . . and it doesn't reflect well on their tastes!

[beetlemania]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

TAS is well known to be a no-BS publication.

 Sarcasm font must be broken

[beetlemania]

18 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Hey, enjoy your "MQA Ready" DAC. It's your right.

 

An illumined MQA light is certainly the best cure for audiophile nervosa ever conceived

 

Meanwhile, I found that John Atkinson DID send his raw files plus impulse response to MQA 

Why on Earth would he do that?

[beetlemania]

11 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Are you saying he sent the stems, the multi-track files, and not the two channel mixes???

 

In the discussion section of the linked article, JA wrote:

Quote

But to answer your question: As I used 3 pairs of microphones and 2 types of A/D converter to produce the mixdown—see the photos—as well as the mixdown I sent Bob Stuart each of the 3 mike-pair recordings, including an impulse response recording for each, and full details of the mix.

 

So, he sent 1) his final mix; 2) tracks of each of three mic pairs; and 3) the impulse responses!

[beetlemania]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Because MQA doesn't let anybody have the encoder (without $20k encoder-box they sell). They sell encoding service where you pay to get your tracks encoded. And probably requires signing very restrictive NDA to get any kind access to any of this.

 

 

So, MQA can only be created from the raw tracks, not the final master?

[beetlemania]

31 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 So he pushed back on people and got himself banned here.
 

 

Brian Lucey is banned here?

smh

[beetlemania]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

He got defensive when a bunch of people here jumped all over him telling him he sucked because some recent pop releases he mastered didn't have a DR rating of 17 or more. Yes, he was a bit angry. Any reasonable person would be in that situation. If you select your music based on DR numbers alone, don't fucking listen to modern pop. Brian came here to share his views on MQA but ended up facing a lynch mob instead. Although he can be blamed for taking the bait, the attacks on him were totally uncalled for. You all did a smashing job losing a good ally. Bob must be thrilled with you.

 

Yes, I saw the predictable car wreck when people were taking shots at Lucey's livelihood (and derailed the thread) but missed the part where Mr Connaker banned him. Then again, Mr Connaker was among those hucking the molotov cocktails.

 

sigh

[beetlemania]

1 hour ago, opus101 said:

 

Ah this must be some strange new usage of the word 'reasonable' that I wasn't previously aware of.

 

Here's what I wrote in that thread after many threw rocks at Lucey:

 

LOL, yeah, none of you are "attacking" Brian Lucey. You're merely giving him unsolicited critiques of how he's doing his job wrong. Each of you would be totally cool with random people giving uninformed critiques of your work, right? This after he forcefully weighed in on mqa (with barely any recognition from posts here) and went off topic to explain the "loudness war" and his limited ability to address it.

 

SMH.

 

So, yes, it's reasonable that he was angered.

[beetlemania]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Im guessing you missed most of his posts and the post where I offered to meet him in Los Angeles because I was sure we got off on the wrong foot. 

 

 

I think I *did* read most of those. My recollection is one or two from *you* criticized his role in the loudness war. For sure, there were several over-the-top flames directed at Lucey that you failed to moderate. In fact, you didn't see any problem whatsoever. Isn't it weird that manufacturers and professionals, who come to share their knowledge, are pilloried and often driven off this these fora? But, hey, it's your blog.

[beetlemania]

The evidence is in the "spin-off" thread. One post questioned whether we could believe anything Lucey said given that his masterings were, in the opinion of the poster, overly compressed. Your participation there seemed only to fan the flames - I missed the part were you told esldude to dial it back. As I wrote in that thread:

 

LOL, yeah, none of you are "attacking" Brian Lucey. You're merely giving him unsolicited critiques of how he's doing his job wrong. Each of you would be totally cool with random people giving uninformed critiques of your work, right?

 

I often learn quite a lot when manufacturers and professionals post on the audiophile blogs (I'm really going to miss posts from Charles Hansen). Yes, no one should be put on a pedestal, but neither should they be targeted for harsh criticisms or assumed to have nefarious motives because of how they make a living. It is unfortunate, IMO, that you do not see any problem on this website regarding the latter behavior.

 

 

[beetlemania]

I 'spose it could just be a coincidence that there is much more professional participation (Curl, Hansen, Khomenko, Karsten, Jim Smith, Rankin, et al.) over on AudioAsylum where the posts are more carefully moderated.

[beetlemania]

I'm trying the free Tidal demo (I quite like it and may subscribe) and finally listened to an MQA file. I found Marianne Thorsen's Mozart violin concerto I originally sampled form the 2L label. I have the 192/24 version of Allegro from 2L's "test bench" as well as the entire album in 96/24 FLAC. Tidal has an MQA version that displays as 88 kHz on my DAC display. My DAC is an Ayre QB-9 DSD, so it doesn't do the full "MQA unfold" but it does have a filter very similar to what MQA uses.

Ayre DX-5 impulse response, "listen" filter (from stereophile.com)

MQA impulse response (from soundonsound.com)

 

Two caveats for the listening comparison: 1) FLAC playback was via JRMC22 whereas MQA playback was via Tidal - SPLs were matched by ear, and 2) this was a sighted test - I can't do it blind as I have when comparing PCM sample rates and bit depths via Foobar. Anyhow, I found the MQA version to sound notably strident in comparison to the 96/24 FLAC. It was not even equivalent, much less better, than the 96/24 FLAC. YMMV, but I'm sticking with PCM, thanks.

 

 

[beetlemania]

19 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Oldie but a goodie...totally desperate move to repost this.

Over on audioasylum, I asked LaVorgna for examples of " valid level-matched A/B comparisons ". He never replied but Charles Hansen weighed in on Lavorgna article you linked:

Quote

It's (conveniently for Bob Stuart) never been done as far as I can tell. Probably the closest were the ones done by Michael Lavorgna in his article (linked below).

In this case, ML had MQA process songs with which he was already familiar - a vastly better starting point for this type of comparison than normal MQA demos. It's unclear if Michael checked to ensure that the processed files were level matched to within ±0.1 dB, which would be necessary for the most accurate results.

The biggest problem with ML's test was that he was only able to properly compare files on two relatively low-performance DACs - the Meridian Explorer2 ($299) and the Mytek Brookly ($2000, but at least 1/3 of that goes towards all kinds of features aimed at "pro studio" - the kind in the teenager's basement - analog preamp, headphone amp, even a MM/MC phono input, not to mention 6 different digital inputs). Both are decent sounding for the money and considering the features they offer, but hardly "state of the art".

 

[beetlemania]

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sorry, but that quote is real audiophile snobbery.

Did you read the entire linked post?

[beetlemania]

17 hours ago, Fair Hedon said:

He says even the anti-MQA engineers cannot tell a difference between the master file and the MQA streamed 24/192 file.

If it's so close that experienced sound engineers cannot hear it, a lot of this discussion seems a bit academic.

 

Awesome! So, at best, MQA is indistinguishable from PCM? And we get to pay more for DACs and content for this?

 

No, Mr. Scoggins, it's not academic. It's stupid! High end audio is shrinking and now everyone has to pay licensing fees to MQA for the thrill of having a blue light illuminated. Ugh.

 

But it's even worse than that given that people who hear worse SQ via MQA outnumber those who claim to prefer MQA.

[beetlemania]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Think about this for a minute.

 

The original 24/192 file is being folded into a 24/48 file, then unfolded, then played back while streaming with no loss of fidelity to experienced ears compared to the original file.

 

That seems to indicate the claimed “17 bits” contains all of the music.

 

The triangular encoding must be robust.

 

Waat?

 

First, this is complete nonsense. There are multiple reports from credible listeners of diminished SQ from MQA including loss of resolution.

 

Second, you didn't address the point of my post: consumers will have to PAY MORE for performance that makes zero difference, at best (and probably worse SQ). WTF should audiophiles care? Tidal is streaming 24/192, right? So why would anyone care that MQA can reduce file size?

 

Bizarre and destructive to the audio industry.

[beetlemania]

8 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Classy.

Almost as good as bashing a dead guy.

[beetlemania]

53 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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?

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

 

 

[beetlemania]

1 hour 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

 

Thank you for participating here, Mr. Atkinson

 

Most of that writing strikes me as other than "investigative journalism" (FWIW, I've been a subscriber for nearly 20 years and part-time reader for much longer than that).

 

MQA was first billed as "as good as hi-res but in a smaller package" so that it could be streamed in a bandwidth-limited world. Now, bandwidth isn't much, if any, limitation and the goalpost is moved to "it sounds BETTER than hi-res". If you and others prefer MQA sonics, great! There's no accounting for taste, lossy or not.

 

But I haven't noticed much investigative journalism into the compelling reasons MQA is bad for high-end audio (not the least of which is it will make hardware and software more expensive). In particular, I haven't seen you or Jim Austin address the points raised by Linn Audio or Schitt Audio.

 

Nor have you addressed the reasons you sent your raw files, including impulse response, to MQA rather than simply your master. All I can do is speculate. Charles Hansen offered a compelling explanation for why you and Peter McGrath preferred MQA'd versions of your recordings. This could further explain why other listeners, using widely-released recordings, hear little difference, if any, with many listeners reporting degraded SQ.

[beetlemania]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

What if it actually sounds worse? 

 

Outside of gun-for-hire TAS and Atkinson/McGrath (whose files apparently received special attention), most others report  subtle improvement, no difference, slight preference for PCM, or coloration and loss of resolution.

 

But, hey, at least we all get to pay more for hardware and content

[beetlemania]

6 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

A solution to a non-problem.

 

 

Only if it's not a problem that the labels don't have DRM or that Bob Stuart doesn't have his hand in your wallet every time you buy a DAC or an album

[beetlemania]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Peter is claiming he isn't Peter.

 

If only there were some way to know . . .

 

Maybe Brink can give Peter III a lesson.

[beetlemania]

22 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

One has to remember that he always fights on two fronts: readers and advertisers.

 

I don't think that's fair. MQA doesn't advertise directly in Stereophile (and even if they did, this line of criticism seems dubious). And with few exceptions (Mytek?) most manufacturers are lukewarm on MQA, if not outright hostile. My guess is that JA has outsized admiration for BS (pun intended) and MQA's claims appealed to him.