MQA is Vaporware

[Pierre LeMonf]

If I may, I have a question. If one unpacks an MQA FLAC file to WAV or AIFF, does it retain the MQA tags?

 

Also, if one converts to lossy MP3 or AAC, same question, does it retain the MQA info?

 

Merci in advance.

 

Pierre.

[Pierre LeMonf]

18 hours ago, danadam said:

It depends what you mean by "MQA tags". If you mean the bitstream instructions that make the mqa-capable DAC's LED light up, then yes. If you mean the FLAC tags related to MQA, like:

ENCODER=MQAEncode v1.1, 2.3.3+862 (3fe8af8), DF77A107-A71F-4E57-A322-872C6D0E99C8, Jan 01 2018 01:09:00
MQAENCODER=MQAEncode v1.1, 2.3.3+862 (3fe8af8), DF77A107-A71F-4E57-A322-872C6D0E99C8, Jan 01 2018 01:09:00
ORIGINALSAMPLERATE=352800

then usually no.

In this case the bitstream instructions are lost too.

Merci.

 

So If understand you correctly, converting an MQA album to Mp3 or AAC, then loading it into Roon, you would not see the "MQA Badge"...?

[Pierre LeMonf]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I still think how MQA works is indeed elegant. It recognizes that with real-world music, the spectral energy falls off with increasing frequency and that the recording's analog noisefloor is higher than the 24-bit floor. (With my choral recordings, which have very low acoustic and electronic noise - see attached room tone spectrum -  the noisefloor can be accurately encoded with an 18-bit word length.) The former means that the energy above 1Fs can be quantized with a small number of bits and the latter means that those ultrasonic data can be encrypted to resemble pseudo-random noise and buried in a hidden data channel in bits 19-24 beneath the analog noisefloor. There is a slight noise penalty but it is a fraction of a dB. And as noise is noise, you can't detect the buried data channel by ear.

 

This buried data technique is called steganography and is widely used in telecommunications and video technology - however, because the bottom bits now contain information, the data's entropy is higher and FLAC can't compress an MQA-encoded file as much as it can a straight 24-bit audio file.

 

As Jon Iverson wrote in the article I referred to in my earlier posting, MQA offers benefits to both the record industry and the consumer. The former is no longer allowing free access to its unencrypted masters; the latter gets an improvement in sound quality. (The saving in bandwidth is no longer relevant, except for people who don't have unlimited data plans and want to stream hi-rez audio to their phones.) The benefit to the consumer is the "deblurring" that I discussed in a 2018 article: www.stereophile.com/content/zen-art-ad-conversion. The post-Shannon sampling - see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/843002 - allows the ADC/DAC chain to be optimized to preserve transient information. Again, this is not new; Post-Shannon sampling is used in video when you don't want image edges to be burred, as in cartoons and anime.

 

The price to be paid for the deblurring is the introduction of a small amount of aliased image energy. When you consider the spectral distribution of real-word music, this aliased energy will lie below the recording's original noisefloor and is therefore inconsequential.

 

Unlike Apple/Dolby Atmos, MQA has not done a good job of selling the benefit to the consumer, which is why everyone complains about losing open access. (Audio has been the only medium where there haven't been proprietary closed formats - no-one complains about Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Atmos, DVD, Blu-ray etc, etc, where there are large license fees involved for manufacturers wanting to offer those formats.)

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile
 

Dear Sir:

 

It seems to me that you are clinging to your embrace of MQA simply because you refuse to admit you are wrong. I compare you to the disgraced French professor Didier Raoult who promoted hydroxychloroquine as a "cure" for Covid-19, with a junk science study that was not peer reviewed or controlled in any way. And MQA surely is junk. As with Raoult, C'est pas un charlatan. It is very sad.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/07/19/hydroxychloroquine-europe-turns-away-from-doctor-who-championed-drug-with-irresponsible-study/?sh=76ddb577f912

[Pierre LeMonf]

Forgive me, but after parsing through this thread, isn't the quote below pure merde?

 

 

"When music is playing, the EVO's screen displays, along with the album cover, the song and album titles, the artist's name, the stream resolution, the file format, the track's total and elapsed time, and—if the track is MQA—the MQA logo accompanied by either a green or a blue dot indicating whether that MQA recording is engineer- or artist-approved (blue, "MQA Studio"). If the dot is green, it means that the file being streamed is intact MQA, but it may not be the most recent or definitive version of the recording.

 

I got a kick out of seeing my first blue authentication dot. I thought: "This recording is the real deal!" It appeared on the 24/192 MQA version of John Coltrane's cover of "My Favorite Things" (Atlantic/Qobuz) which I heard after I'd heard that same track on a green-lighted 16/44.1 MQA mix."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/cambridge-audio-evo-150-streaming-integrated-amplifier

[Pierre LeMonf]

Good evening gents:

 

This interview with the current Editor of Stereophile is intriguing. 

 

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-1134&lang=en

 

"But I'm pretty convinced at this point that high-resolution digital – let us say 24/192 PCM and certainly DXD – is capable of total transparency, at least for me. Maybe others can detect a sonic signature – but play me an exquisitely made 24/192 needle drop and I can't distinguish it from the original vinyl. To me, high-res digital is a (potentially) transparent container for music, with no sound of its own, while vinyl is a true medium that has a particular sound."

 

If this is SO..and and 24/192 PCM is totally transparent, why does speak out of the other side of his mouth about why MQA is valid?

[Pierre LeMonf]

A question for others much better verse than I am:

 

How much as MQA infiltrated 16/44.1 streams and downloads?

 

Merci in advance.

[Pierre LeMonf]

On 11/28/2021 at 4:37 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Could ask him @Jim Austin

since he has not replied, I can only assume intellectual dishonesty...a true artiste de conneries...

[Pierre LeMonf]

19 hours ago, Revelation said:

You need to read my post better. I said it sounds like the Mytek. I never said they are using Mytek converters 

Your premise sounds rather ridiculous. 

[Pierre LeMonf]

2L MQA-CD | The Vinyl Anachronist-

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2022/02/01/2l-mqa-cd-the-vinyl-anachronist/

 

[Pierre LeMonf]

12 hours ago, wdw said:

Attempted to add this comment to J. Austen's article on the  CH SACD/CD player but it appears I may have been ?

 

 

 

 

Sure some readers will roll their heads at this mention, assuming we are just a rabble of crazy dissenters, but I must ask...what does B.Stuart have on you guys?   
MQA is finished and has been thoroughly rejected by the majority of listeners for many reasons the strongest being the disagreement as to suggested audio improvement but the other, most importantly,  their pathetic attempt at some quasi monopoly on the public music market.  
You, Jason and, say, Robert Harley always make a concerted attempt to review the MQA portion of the piece at hand when, lets say 0.00003 percent of the listening public know about it and more importantly the ones that do largely reject it  (I own a dCS DAC quite capable of rendering MQA)  
That the you, Jason and Robert Harley offer these unusual and oddly abnormal pieties to MQA is baffling and suggests, to me, something Trumpian, 
(ie: his apparent complicity with Putin which if not true is so odd as to be ridiculous)
Hence, what are you doing? 
MQA represents an attack on the free market of file exchange and musical listening...this was a battle we have, at least if you are my age, lived through when S. Jobs fought and won against extraordinary opposition to open up the digital music market.  
MQA is the polar opposite of his struggle and for what ever marginal benefit you evangelists are advocating, it should be rejected out of hand. 
If anyone is dull-witted enough to simply state that one can simply not listen to MQA aren't bringing the requisite  resources to the party.
Look at your AV gear and simply acknowledge all the proprietary codec the developer must support with licensing fees to see the hidden cost we must bear whether used or not.  This bundle of licensing killed innovation in the video industry.

 

"Well, the last comment learned from C. Hanson on this very site"

 

Utterly preposterous. It boggles the mind that this dreck can appear in a print magazine in 2022.

[Pierre LeMonf]

20 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I know how close these teams worked with the MQA team.

Sir, can you provide any evidence that "Wadax nor MSB have optimized MQA implementations"?

[Pierre LeMonf]

5 hours ago, jcbenten said:

Schiit, Ayre, Linn, maybe a couple of others, mentioned loud and clear just after MQA release that they were not interested.  No follow ups that I have read.

Let's not forget Bryston, McIntosh, Benchmark, and a host of others who have not only rejected MCA (Master Crap Audio), but have spoken out publicly. McIntosh even called it added "distortion". 

 

MCA has separated the engineering driven companies from the marketing driven companies. Guess which one I give my Euros to!

[Pierre LeMonf]

This must be one of the most egregious examples of a "review" masquerading as an MQA PR release.

 

Absurd, to say the least. This clown is an embarrassment to his magazine.

 

And the irony. Meitner himself said that MQA is lossy garbage, but did not want to lose any sales.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/meitner-ma3-integrated-da-processor

 

Some samples of the rubbish posted:

 

"..Scott and I moved back in time to the title track from Grant Green's Idle Moments and compared Tidal's 24/192 MQA version to Qobuz's 24/192 FLAC. We both greatly preferred the MQA version, which Scott felt had clearly delineated instrumental size/scale and separation and an extremely wide soundstage that extended about 4' outside the edges of the speakers. We both grooved on the copious detail and the convincingly brassy overtones of the cymbals. Beyond all that was the smooth, warm, drop-dead gorgeous music which the MA3 did proud.

 

"Delicious," said Scott of the MQA version. "Far more life and energy," added I. This was Scott's first exposure to MQA, and he called the differences "painfully obvious." His impressions were seconded by a recent call from a friend who works in an audio dealership and has heard the striking differences between the MQA and non-MQA versions of Peter McGrath's priceless trove of private orchestral and chamber recordings. If you want to hear what MQA is about, the Meitner MA3, EMM Labs DV2, and dCS Rossini DACs are good places to start."

[Pierre LeMonf]

"MQA does not claim to reconstruct high-resolution data perfectly. The intent is to deliver a high-resolution audio signal that is perceptually very close to the original high-resolution content. MQA involves signal processing that hides information in audio noise. Therefore, MQA is not data-lossless."

 

Ed Meitner

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/meitner-emm-dv2-dsd-mqa-digital-audio

 

Imagine spending 20,000 Euros to not have the data reconstructed perfectly. Boggles the mind.

[Pierre LeMonf]

 

At 23 minutes..MQA is "a marketing decision"...

 

 

[Pierre LeMonf]

HDTracks.com now peddling MQA:

 

https://www.hdtracks.com/?trk_msg=7T3MQRHPG3JKNETHN9FMP335JK&trk_contact=FOPHCCTN25F6RT5B031DL5G6V4&trk_sid=91PH0ND7OHDC1GH943ARF78AEC&trk_link=E26P7FRFA6AKRD5U12Q07A7RF0&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Explore+the+full+MQA+collection&utm_campaign=HUGE+Hi-Res+Announcement+%2b+25%+Off+New+Hi-Res...#/category/6307e5f5563d08005a06e8ec

 

 

I will never purchase a download from their store again. 

[Pierre LeMonf]

Hmmm it looks like a new MQA shill has appeared in our midst! 

[Pierre LeMonf]

More disgusting MQA shilling from Michael Fremer. Good riddance to him...

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/analog-corner-265-notes-road-hi-fi-shows-mqa

 

And absurd amount of misinformation and disinformation here. Shameful.

[Pierre LeMonf]

On 9/6/2022 at 1:36 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

That was from 2017. I think he has turned a corner with respect to mQa. I think. 

Pardon, my eyes are not what they used to be. I still don't quite understand why they would repost a show report from 5 years ago. 

[Pierre LeMonf]

3 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

I don't get your angle. Tidal's HiFi tier doesn't include Masters versions. Its HiFi Plus tier does. That looks like a choice to me.

Your defense of MQA, a clearly inferior scam, is far too spirited to be just a casual observer, eh "Brahan" 

[Pierre LeMonf]

5 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

I like the way Masters sound, yes. I also find some of the attitudes in this forum somewhat extreme. Just adding a bit of balance. :-)

Lame attempt at squirming away. "MQA is a business trying to be successful". Thanks for the chuckle. So was Meridian, for 40 years. That never happened.

[Pierre LeMonf]

4 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

There is 'voting with [y]our dollars'. And there is partaking in/enabling the spreading of unsavoury chat about a brand - and its employees. More than occasionally, this thread goes too far imho.

When people in the "brands" tell lies, market dishonestly, and try to stop the truth from coming out, they deserve all the "unsavoury" beatdowns they get.

[Pierre LeMonf]

5 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Agree to disagree. It's still too harsh.

Classic troll/shill passive-agressive posting techniques.

[Pierre LeMonf]

Mr. Fremer just posted this.  His lack of any basic understanding is shocking.

 

"MQA CDs can unpack 192/24 so good luck to you! No one has “golden ears” nor have I ever claimed them. You are both disagreeable and ignorant."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/analog-corner-265-notes-road-hi-fi-shows-mqa

[Pierre LeMonf]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Michael was misinformed and elected to listen to the wrong person. 

That is far too kind. This is willful ignorance. All the data is out there.