MQA is Vaporware

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

 

2. I have defended the business model because I have seen the value of "data ecosystems" and as someone who has worked on recording session with musicians, I see it as a possible path to getting folks to pay more for premium music which in turn could lead to more revenue for the artist.  I am historically not a fan of record labels or how they have been managed.  That view is well documented on the Steve Hoffman forum.

 

 

I should like to ask you to expand upon this a bit more. So far as I can see, MQA is not very beneficial to most musicians, only to the corporate side, which is probably not coincidentally, where revenues where supposedly hit the hardest.  I do not see how MQA does anything for the average Joe playing for his supper and selling CDs and music downloads at concerts and on the net. 

 

Now understand, I think the folks that developed MQA had a great idea, and implemented it well, but - well - I also think it was mostly just another way, supposedly an attractive way, to implement DRM, which always fails sooner or later. 

 

[Paul R]

15 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

What all this comes down to is this: Do you TRUST the people that are advocating for MQA?

 

Trust exactly whom? And in exactly what respect? 

 

Trust the technical minds minds and at least the potentional of the technology for sound reproduction? Sure.

 

Trust the marketing minds and the potential for abuse? Probably not.

 

Trust most of the reviewers? Yep, they try hard to be both accurate and mostly objective. Some are just stuffed shirts with a desperate need for recognition, but those are few and very far between in our hobby world. 

 

There is is no way to wrap up the issue into simple little sound bytes suitable for the evening news. The subject needs more of an NPR in depth reporting treatment.

[Paul R]

Well, I think I would trust Bob Stuart with pretty much any audio subject, as the man is brilliant technically, and has shown that in the audio world time and time again since the 1970's. That's a long track record of achievement, and MQA did not fail in a technical sense, but rather in implementation and marketing. Technically, it has the potential to provide better sound. It also has the potential to lock people into an unpleasant situation with non-MQA music files. 

 

Honestly? I don't know who you are, or what possible motivation you could have to be attacking Bob Stuart with what appears to be such anger. Stuart is, and pretty much always has been, one of the good guys. Sounds like some kind of personal agenda just from what you wrote above.  I haven't been very active on the system for the past year or so, so I might have missed when you introduced yourself. 

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[Paul R]

I would dispute with you that it is not the MQA algorithm that has failed, but rather, the intentionally crippled implementations of it.

 

I believe most (if not all) of the implementations were designed to "protect" the music industry interests,  along the same lines as why the music industry has consistently refused to provide high quality master recordings for decades. 

 

MQA *could* be used to release master level recordings, but the industry just will not sanction that. The result? Same old crap. People's reputations sullied, and a lot of anger in the community. 

 

IMNSHO, YMMV, etc.  - Paul 

 

 

[Paul R]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

Sorry, but you're not making any sense.

 

Okay, let me restate it. The technology of MQA is absolutely capable of doing everything that it was claimed it could do - namely put master quality music in the hands of audiophiles and music lovers. 

 

The implementation of MQA was intentionally crippled, and not by Stuart. Or at least, not by Stuart alone. 

 

Not sure how to say it any clearer than that. 

 

P.S.  Do I support MQA? No. I think it is the DIVX of the audio world.  -Paul

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

Not in it's current form...

 

Exactly.  

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

FLAC already does that just fine. The sole purpose of MQA is to extract revenue for Bob Stuart at every stage of music handling, from recording studio to playback device. The labels jumped on board since MQA lets them claim to be providing "master quality" music while simultaneously keeping their "crown jewels" safely under lock and key. Quite the magic trick, if it were true. Of course, when we reversed engineered the format, we found that it was mostly fake. As magic tricks tend to be.

 

Whatever gave you that idea?

 

Guess we will have to disagree on this one.  I don’t have a dog in the Bob Stuart hunt going on. Indeed, I think the man just fell in with bad company. 

 

IRT FLAC, other than a few high end companies, have you seen any digitally distributed master recordings from traditional record companies? If not, then FLAC is technically capable of distributing master recordings, but it ain’t happening. So is AIFF, WAV, ALAC, and a few other formats. Why is such distribution not happening? Is it a technical fault in the formats?

 

[Paul R]

21 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Paul if Bob Stuart approached anyone in The Silicon Beach (LA), Silicon Valley (Bay Area), The Silicon Forrest (Portland Oregon) or the Puget Sound area with MQA they would and have shown him the door. Meridian’s losses are large enough to overcome any argument you can make about Bob’s technical brilliance.  Simple due diligence really.

 

When the studio guys were approached sound quality was not talked about. They were the ones initially found that it altered the sound. Something I’ve talked with Bob Stuart about.

 

MQA is bad for artists, recoding engineers, mastering engineers and consumers. No evidence has been shown me that MQA can sound better. If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence to the contrary that we haven’t already shown to be untrue and without merit. No anger there and I would calculate that it probable (greater than a 75% chance) I have better information than you do.

 

I wondered who would be the first to play you are angry card in 2019. You win but you should know everyone who tried in 2017 and 2018 failed. An angry Rt66indierock never survives any face to face conversation.

 

 

So, who are you? I am not terribly impressed with the apparent anger and one sided arguments you make, but honestly  - who cares? I seriously doubt Bob is reading this and breaking out in a cold sweat over your postings or mine, or anyone else’s. (Maybe Chris’....) 

 

If MQA is a sore spot for you, that’s cool. Share your gripes. 

 

But honestly, most people are here to have a bit of fun, conversation, and enjoy each other’s virtual company. MQA nor anyone involved with it is out there killing babies, and as far as I know there are not even any Klingon Puppies involved... besides which, I doubt the situation is completely as you present it. Obvious prejudice showing. 

[Paul R]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

This deserves a Luke Skywalker "Amazing. Every word you just said was wrong." reaction.

 

It is instructive however in how myopic and introverted the old guard (of all levels - publishing, hobbyists, etc.) is.

 

Watch it with those “old”  cracks  kiddo! I got a virtual cane around here somewhere... 🤪

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, rickca said:

They just want to kill distribution of anything but MQA.  So no more FLAC high res.  Are you OK with that?

 

Let me ask you a question back - were record companies and the RIAA able to kill digital downloads? Stop Peer 2 Peer file sharing? Hi Res downloads? Apple Music? They spent millions trying to kill each of those...

 

Why do you think MQA can do this?

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s the thing. MQA Ltd delivered the tool to the labels. 

 

Hi Chris - the labels have tried to cripple every innovation for at least the past 40 years or so, from CDs to Downloads. Their number one tool is usually taking some technology and using it for copy protection. They use those failures as the reason to not release the master recordings at the highest resolutions. Who would buy their back catalog on the newest gee whiz media if they did?

 

Never has worked out that well for them, and I don’t think it ever will. Tech moves too quickly these days, and anything that 1. Prevents easy online distribution or to a lesser extent, degrades the audio, is fought persistently, and eventually successfully when tech catches up. 

 

I do do not personally see a reason to assume this latest attempt with MQA will succeed either, but I do believe that MQA technology could deliver master tape quality sound. I do not believe it will be allowed to however. 

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Incorrect, it is happening. Most legal high resolution downloads (24-bit PCM FLAC and DSD) are NOT from audiophile or boutique labels but from the major labels (Warner Bros., Universal and Sony) at HDtracks and Superhirez.

 

Most audiophile labels are only available in hi-res as SACDs as they don't do hi-res downloads.

 

 

Hi Teresa - I am be wrong, but I do not think those hi-Rez releases are at the same quality as the actual masters. At least not the vast majority of the ones from the major labels. 

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Paul, I’m the person who started this thread. Love the who cares part, can’t think of a weaker comeback when if you had been following this thread you would know who cares. The Grammy people distributed the original post “MQA is Vaporware.” You would also know that Bob Stuart and Ken Forsythe did try and get Chris to shut the thread down. And Chris told me the thread is or was causing heartburn in the industry even among those who oppose MQA.

 

Yes, my prejudice is showing, I’ve worked with MQA in studio environments. It doesn’t work as you think it does. Artists cash flow will not improve with MQA so why bother? And I’ve been stunned by the damage MQA can do when tracks are processed.

 

Finally, I’ve shared my gripes and encouraged other to share theirs that’s what the MQA discussion is about on Audiophile Style. You want pro MQA stuff read Stereophile and The Absolute Sound.

 

Lot of talk, no name or verifiable record. You may have the experience you say you do, but you can also just be a disgruntled journalist. You also gripe a lot all over the internet. 

 

Tell you what, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt seriously you understand the tech, or understand How it is purposely crippled, or even why. As for reading Stereophile, well, let’s just say some of the folks there disagree with you, and while I often disagree with some of their thinking, I still respect most of their opinions. Certainly Atkinson and a few others. 

 

You might take the time to read the original paper on the subject, as well as some of the publicly available follow up material. I believe it is open access now from the AES-E library. Would be paper number 9178 from October of 2014. The capability of the technology to work with hi res recordings has been proven and documented by multiple people over. 

 

Because the crap we see today is crap, the problem is not with the technology, but with how it was implemented in a particular way, and more importantly why. And of course, the issue of combatting the labels never ending battle to get us to pay yet again for more crap. 

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Your belief is just that - a belief  - one that flies in the face of all available facts known (i.e. proved by the reverse engineering and disambiguation done here) about MQA.  To build upon this belief a conspiracy is a  self_fulfilling_prophecy.  Whatever floats your boat 😉

 

The truth of MQA is much more banal:  It is a lossy/compression scheme (a super mp3) brought to market too late for any actual consumer benefit, and from the beginning was meant to protect the "crown jewels" through technical and legal means (DRM).  

 

Sigh - no it is an informed belief, based upon signifigant study - just as you believe your thinking to be. 

But I have no desire to fight over this, so believe as you will. I am out of the discussion at this point. 

 

 

 

    

[Paul R]

Hi Danny - maybe so. I just find it difficult to believe that releases are mastered in 24/48k or even 24/96. I expect DXD 

, DSD, or at least 24/192. 🤪 

 

Also,  while you will find I have never been in favor of MQA, because I don’t agree with hidden DRM, I see noreason why the tech is limited to 17/96 except for implementation choices. An implementation could be written to use whatever bit depth and sample rate one chooses. It is only software, not a law of nature.

 

YMMV

-Paul

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

[ A whole bunch of stuff I 100% agree with. And said it better than I did. -Paul ]

 

Hi,

The AES paper has serious errors. As pointed out by another poster, it states on page 11 that the MQA filters cause less dispersion, but the actual impulse response shows the pulse is broadened - Figure 14 top figure. An own goal by MQA.

 

 

I agree with everything you said except this point. I think the commercial code out there was deliberately written to limit the resolution, and that it’s current behavior is not a limitation of the technology / algorithm.

 

There are similar implementations of similar technology in other fields that do not have this flaw. Other flaws perhaps, but not this. Ergo - this flaw is on purpose. 

 

Now, the behavior of the people selling/marketing MQA and the recording industry, well, I agree with you completely. 

[Paul R]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You’re correct. On the other hand, the failure to seriously engage on technical topics and concerns audiophiles have about access to non-proprietary hi res means that an actual exchange of ideas isn’t being sought by most folks of pro-MQA persuasion either.  So yes, ganging up on folks who don’t share an anti-MQA point of view is tiresome.  But how much of real value is thereby missed?  

 

When a couple of MQA principals derailed Chris’s RMAF presentation, they used the time not to put forward facts, but to attack the anonymity of someone who did measurements, and to attack Chris’s honesty by implying he’d been given confidential pro-MQA technical information that contradicted what he was saying publicly. All insinuation, no open technical discussion.  If that’s indicative of what’s being missed, it doesn’t seem like a great loss.

Yep - and the whole MQA mess came about because Meridian was unwilling to release MLP, which IMO, was/is a legit competitor to DSD.  MQA was their answer to not adversely affect their MLP revenues.  And, I suppose, to keep recording industry execs from going ape **** crazy when they realized what MLP actually was. 

 

Meridian Lossles Packing is the tech behind DVD-A, for those who may not be familiar with it. There is a story with a whole lot of erie similarity in that...

 

Knowing that story is, I think, important to understanding the marketing mindset and goals behind MQA. And to understanding why and how I believe MQA is purposefully crippled. 

 

I think MQA will suffer the same fate as every other copy protection scheme, and perhaps for the same reasons, though that thinking is purely opinion. 

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

What leads you to believe this? Do you have access to privileged information the rest of us do not?

 

No, see previous reply with reference to M

12 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sorry, no. LOTS of releases are still mastered in no more than 24/44.1. if you look at all forms of popular music, it is almost unheard of for recording to be done in anything above 24/96, and even that isn't the norm. Pros don't see it the same way audiophiles do.  Their main concern is preserving the quality during the mixing of lots of tracks. Bit depth is considered more important for this.
Some studios see extreme hi-res as unnecessary - EMI, for example, specifically says they see no reason to work in anything higher than 24/96.  Again, check and you will see that recording in 24/44.1 and 24/48 is quite common. Recording in 4X rates and 8X rates is definitely not the norm at the big labels. Sometimes recordings are upsampled to  4X rate for mixing, and then brought back down for mastering. Really working and mastering in 4x rates or higher is pretty much only at specialty labels.

 

Well, my experience is pretty limited to the Austin scene, but even garage bands there record in 24/192k  or higher. A few still do tape actually. 

 

I suspect you know more than I do about the commercial “high res” releases though. 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The only positive back in the day was that Sony couldn't say it's Mini Disc or nothing. That just wouldn't fly. Now Sony can say it's MQA or nothing and everyone must accept it or stop listening to Sony music that's only available as MQA.

 

Do you really think there is a chance of that happening? 

 

I see Sony adding in capability for MQA decoding in all it’s hardware of course. But I don’t know that Sony Media would take the drastic and expensive step of publishing all their music in MQA only format. 

 

As it stands today, that would make Sony the target of rather intense hacking efforts. Inevitably, whatever form of MQA Sony was using, and probably every MQA Implementation in the world would be forever broken.  That might be a good thing in the long run of course. 

 

If anything, I would worry more about new cars and trucks coming with MQA options for “hi res”  listening. That has more potential to cause havoc  in the audiophile world than much of anything else I can think of, in some ways at least...

 

 

[Paul R]

46 minutes ago, mansr said:

2L, an obscure label, already did this. If they can do it, why couldn't Sony, given their strength in the market?

 

If they publish MQA at all, dropping the clean releases would be a saving, not a cost.

 

Got a reference for 2L? All their new releases look to be in multiple formats, at lest for 2019. 

For example. 

 

[Paul R]

33 minutes ago, spin33 said:

 

Yes, 2L sells their releases in a multitude of formats (including MQA). They have, however, made the decision to provide only 'CD quality' (MQA encoded) files to the streaming services. 2L has publicly acknowledged this.

 

Oh I see.  That actually might make perfect sense for non-audiophiles. It *is* a step up from 128kbs MP3 sound streams.

 

But, I take your point. To me it is less of an issue because I am still old school enough to buy music that I want to keep forever. I don't trust *any* of the streaming services. Rather, I don't trust any of the labels that supply the streaming services. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Respectfully, your not following along.  Nobody is stepping up from 128 MP3 to MQA CD.  They are stepping down from 16/44 to MQA CD.  This is true even when MQA CD replaces 16/44 as the source file for a 128 MP3 encoding...

 

The vast amount of streaming going on today is not CD 16/44.1K files, it is lossy 128kbs MP3 or 256k AAC. And while people can usually tell the difference between a 128kbs MP3 and a CD, not many can tell the difference between a 256AAC stream and a CD. Only audiophiles tend to pay the premium to stream CD and hi-res music, or in fact, really care that much about the difference. We are a very loud, but very small part of the consumer landscape. 

 

I do not believe 128kbs MP3 stream sounds as good as even a non-processed MQA CD file. MQA is, at least for the vast majority of people, a step UP from MP3s. Maybe not a step up from Apple 256AAC, but that is questionable. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

All this is true.  What is its relevance to the subject at hand?  Where does the MP3 or AAC come from used by streaming companies?  It comes from these compression algorithms being applied to 16/44 files.  What is 2L doing?  They are providing a step down from 16/44 (in this case, MQA CD) to Spotify, Apple, Amazon, etc. that then gets processed by these compression algorithms.  

 

Probably picking nits, but I think the MP3 or AAC files probably come from higher resolution masters than from CD quality files. It's just a couple software clicks. I know Apple holds their source files in a higher quality format than 256AAC. Not sure about 2L, but since they do offer higher resolution copies of everything, I doubt they are creating anything from CD format. 

 

Now, that isn't to say some rather despicable labels have not tried to push off upsampled CD format files as "hi res."  That's a disgusting practice that I hope has been stopped. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I'm going to follow the rules of the Hi-Res Music logo for what are high resolution recordings. 

 

That would be 20/48k in a lossless format. 

 

[Paul R]

"Hi-Res Audio" and "Hi-Res Music" are two different animals.  Hi-Res Audio is from the Japanese Audio Society and is generally put on hardware. 

 

Hi-Res Music is from the RIAA, is put on Music, and as far as I know, is only for North America. 

 

Personally, I think it is a bit of flim-flam, at least in North America. Maybe Europe is a little different.  (By "film-flam" I mean all marketing hype.)