MQA is Vaporware

[Fx Studio]

This is a side by side comparison between FLAC and MQA on a Hi-End 12kW Alcons PA Pro Ribbon based rig.

 

 

The difference between the two especially on female vocals is very obvious - MQA has a 3D quality to it, the vocals just seem to hang in the air, while FLAC collapses around the speakers and sounds flat. 

But that's with the following caveats:

1) It has to be a post 2021 full MQA studio recording.

2) It can not be an old recording made up to be a so called "master".

3) The sound system has to be powerful 110-130db and with fast ribbon drivers.

4) Ideally located in a large room/ space.

5) No resampling after the MQA DAC

 

If I play the same music on a set of Adams A7X monitors, in the same room, on the same player the MQA 3D (time smearing correction effect) can not be heard at all. So I believe it exists, just most peoples audio setups are not able to deliver the audible benefits of MQA and therefore it gets dismissed.

 

 

 

 

[Fx Studio]

21 minutes ago, Norton said:

Perhaps a matter of definition, but is there such a thing as a “full MQA studio recording” at least in terms of commercial releases?

 

My understanding was that all MQA, however recent the recording, was based on processing after recording and I guess after the original master too?  That seems logical as MQA isn’t really suitable as an archive format.  AFAIK, there was only ever  one MQA ADC produced and not aware of it being used for commercial releases.  I could be wrong of course, just curious.

 

MQA with there NDA's keep the cards close to their chest - but my information from the industry is that there is such a thing as an MQA DAW Plugin, and evidence in the huge disparity* between recent post 2019-2021 recordings and old recordings made up to MQA level 1-2 would support that. 

 

* on a Hi end PA system

[Fx Studio]

14 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

There is no actual evidence of this and in fact, even the fabled Mytek ADC with MQA was apparently only ever planned but never actually produced.

 

Exactly, post production processing to the best of anyone's knowledge, but MQA didn't really want anyone to know that of course.

 

Why on earth when going down the tubes as a going concern would the existence of an MQA DAW plugin be kept completely top secret, why would that be in MQA's best interest to keep quiet?

 

What evidence?

 

The music I listen to is EDM producers like David Guetta, they use DAW's like Appleton and FL Studio so no custom ADC is required just the MQA plugin and then when exporting select MQA or FLAC etc.. The Plugin knows from the DAW what ADC is connected for any input channel and applies the compensation for that make/ model.

 

No studio who signed an NDA with MQA will want to get sued by them or an Assignor. Not only would it be costly it would also ruin there reputation. But that's not to say that more information won't slip out in due course though. The reason to remain tight lipped on it presumably is to prevent pirating, one of MQA's biggest customers is a large Chinese streaming provider.

 

People are welcome to do there own research, I have been encouraging people to go and hire similar Alcons equipment and do there own tests like in my video. 

 

 

[Fx Studio]

7 minutes ago, FredericV said:

You probably mean Ableton. Where is the proof of your claims? Since you already got the DAW software name wrong.

There is no plugin
There is no MQA ADC
There was only one brand announcing the ADC but it never happened


And yes with EDM that leaky upsampler filter with one cycle of post-ringing could work, but let's not apply this inferior filter to all music.

Not the quality
Not the master
Not authentic
Not end to end since it can't encode the full content of 100 kHz microphones
Not 24 bit

 

 

 

The plugin for the DAWs does exist I have been told as much so you are wrong on making that assumption.

And if someone really wanted to prove it why not sign up with MQA and find out instead of speculating?

 

MQA is a superior format because of its time smearing correcting, its just you need a hell of a sound system to hear it.

So I get that most people can't hear it and therefore don't want to pay for it when its only the top audiophiles with high end systems who benefit.

 

 

[Fx Studio]

8 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

New with 3 posts. All I need to know.

Nope, been post under the same name on audio channels like Golden Sound/ Amir's for the last 2 years - go check it out.

 

 

[Fx Studio]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I encourage you to read more about it. Based on what I've seen from objective testing, it actually smears the timing. The opposite of what the company claimed.

 

P.S. I know the person who wrote the plugin. I don't believe it was ever officially released and I know it will never be updated.

 

Of course there's a plugin how else could it apply the time smearing correction.

 

I am listening to my PA sound system right now all MQA tracks, awesome 3D sound filling the studio - then Maria Carey comes on "Touch my body" that's only available in FLAC and the sound collapses around the speakers down to 2D. 

 

You guys really should do your own testing instead of assuming things.

 

[Fx Studio]

4 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

You need a hell of a sound system to hear it? Really? Sure. They must love you over at ASR.

 

My system is a PA system not a HiFi - but I have posted about MQA on Amir's YT channel back 2 years ago.

 

 

[Fx Studio]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

News flash - It doesn't.

 

 

Listen to my video and you can hear it... clear as day on a PA ribbon sound system.

[Fx Studio]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Surely you jest. 

 

I am sorry for the shock - it must be terrible realizing you might have been wrong all these years.

[Fx Studio]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

These two statements are incongruous. First we need a hell of a system, but with that hell of a system one can hear it throgh a YouTube video that has incredibly lossy 256 kbps AAC audio. 

 

The Hi Res link at the full resolution is there as well.

[Fx Studio]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

But you said people can hear it in the lossy 256 kbps video. 

 

I have no problem with you hearing how great you think it is. 

Its available at 192khz directly playable from that video link.

[Fx Studio]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The 192 looks, how do I say it, "interesting." In addition, the 192 isn't MQA encoded. 

 

Of course its not MQA - its a recording within the studio of MQA and FLAC playing on my Alcona PA rig, playing the same track side by side as a comparison. Demonstrating the difference between MQA and FLAC and showing the superiority of MQA's time smearing correction.

[Fx Studio]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

How do you get around the time smearing of the A to D converter you're using to record the playback and the time smearing of the D to A converter everyone is using for playback?

 

What microphone did you use?

I used Rode pro mics, Focusrite Scarlet and FL Studio - so yes there will be time smearing but its equal between the two formats. And what's important to understand is that its capturing how the sound performs within the room.

[Fx Studio]

5 minutes ago, FredericV said:

I find this amusing
 

yt-dlp.exe -F https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl5ULnX4viU

It's not even 256 kbps but usually around 128 kbps. Just check all of the available audio-only formats.

Here is the default version, loaded into foobar:

I know a lot of audio press sites who try to do cable and other shootouts, all decimated through a 128 kbps lossy AAC channel ....

My biggest frustration with YT is that I sometimes find music, which I can't find anywhere in flac format.

e.g. 38:50 could be demo quality if it was available in lossless:
 

And this is the format some audiophile press sites want us to use to listen to shootouts .....
 

Did you see the link on the page to the Hi Res original at 192Khz ??

[Fx Studio]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which Rode Pro mics? How many? What is the frequency response of the mics? 

 

I thought you'd use a measurement mic for accurate results.

 

Nope I wasn't measuring anything, just capturing the ambience sound within the studio to show what is heard between the 2 formats.

 

[Fx Studio]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Understood.

 

Why is there content above 20 kHz in your file? Your unnamed microphone likely has a maximum frequency of 20 kHz. 

No idea could be from FL Studio - why can you hear it?  LoL

[Fx Studio]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Fx Studio OK, I'm done. 

OK nice talking to you. 

[Fx Studio]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

The whole time smearing claim of MQA was false from the get go, MQA doesn't correct anything, it simply alters the master it's applied to.

 

Your listening proves nothing - it's relevant to you, not to anyone else on any other system.

 

In objective testing/measurement MQA tracks were actually more smeared than the non-MQA versions.

 

And for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: so the greatness of MQA can only be heard on certain very special types of systems? Then it's basically useless as an audio format.

And btw, MQA themselves claimed exactly the opposite - that it sounded better on any MQA equipped system than the same system without MQA decoding ability.

So you are telling us that you understand the format better than the people that invented it and made it, right?

 

You make some very good points actually.

I think that MQA's actions have largely been guided by economics so they have been less than straight forward about things.

If they had come out and said you need a minimum $20K++ sound system to really hear the benefits of it then would any streaming company or DAC maker have picked up on it?

The MQA indicator should have had more bits available to it, so it could indicate an old track made up to an MQA (level 1-2) separately from a studio mastered MQA (I don't need it because you can tell the difference in a split second on my sound system) but it has undoubtedly created a heck of a lot of confusion. 

They could have been more transparent about how an studio MQA is achieved i.e. some basic information about the plugin - I don't expect to see a free download of it on there website but at least they could have officially clarify it.

 

And as I said before and as you've said here, why do people want to pay all that extra cost for something that basically can't be heard. I have a set of Adams A7X and have never heard that affect on them - they just don't have the power that the Alcons Pro Ribbons have whereby the sound is delivered as though there was no effective resistance from the air. 

 

All that said, it still doesn't mean that the time smearing correction doesn't work or doesn't exist - it does and it does work very well for this type of system. I think the MQA guys are a bunch of tech heads, who have at its core have a very good product, but who would never have found financing or got it out there in the first place had they straight forwardly said;  this is really only meant for Hi End audiophile users ONLY.

 

And that's why when its exposed they run around with their tail between there legs just ignoring it, because to address it - that's really the only answer they can honestly give. 

[Fx Studio]

24 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Actually?

 

All businesses' actions are guided to one extent or another by economics, no one is in business to break even. That said, being less than straightforward about your product will always trigger the BS meter of skepticism, because great products with efficacy can easily withstand scrutiny, and should be able to easily stand on their own two legs without outlandish marketing claims, and the deployment of attack the messenger tactics on any critics.

 

No that would have been non-viable product. You sound like GUTB with these arbitrary "$20k++ or you won't hear it" pronouncements. What about $15k, will I hear at least some of the magic?

 

No one knows what the hell that means. What exactly is MQA level 1-2, and how would that differ from (presumably) level 3 or 4?

 

Ostensibly with the vaporware plugin and ADC, or are we strictly talking about some sort of brand new digital recording, further details of which are bound by NDA (because that sounds sorta cool and plausible... to you).

 

That would be tough to do with vaporware.

 

Wild fantasy conjecture based on absolutely nothing but your own subjective observation. Tell us, how do you make that claim? Have you been able to listen in the past with "no effective resistance from the air" and thus you are able to discern what that sounds like on a comparative basis?

 

Great, how many EDM night club DJs will be employing this system and where can I go to hear it, or is it a unicorn? Will this system work at an outdoor festival, or is that just too much air to overcome?

 

Thanks for that very informed opinion.

 

That must be the reason they've never been able to counter or rebut any scrutiny or criticism, brilliant summation there.

 

 

 

I have always invited people to hire out similar equipment and perform their own tests - the results will be the same.

To hear the time smearing correction effect easily it takes a powerful system and fast PA ribbons.

 

I am trying to describe what that sounds like for someone who hasn't heard it - but here is an example:

Alcons sound LR28 line array system outdoor live test at 300 feet distance:

 

 

 

[Fx Studio]

17 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Always as in for many years now, but this is the very first we are hearing from you on the subject of MQA?

 

I asked you a very specific question about that and you have conveniently tried not to answer it. Once again: Have you been able to listen in the past with "no effective resistance from the air" and thus you are able to discern what that sounds like on a comparative basis?

 

I'm not following, your example is from 2014, and uses the call to authority/good name of Alcons Audio, who seem to have exactly no affiliation with MQA. Search MQA on their site, what do you find?

 

My previous reply to you posed various questions, none of which you've answered. Good evening.

 

Nope, I have been talking about it since I discovered it back more than 2 years ago and started asking about it. Its all documented on Golden Sound and Amir's YT channel in the comments section.

 

In more technical terms - Alcons PA ribbons produce what known as an all-natural cylindrical (Isophasic) wavefront) the sound is everywhere as can be heard in the LR24 test I posted above. That's the big difference that allows the MQA time smearing correction to be easily heard. 

 

[Fx Studio]

29 minutes ago, bogi said:

 

That's your claim only, not proven by any objective fact.

 

 

Because of propaganda fooling.

 

You can't prove a non existing thing by any objective mean. You are telling us that it exists based on your very subjective personal experience you got with specific audio devices. You simply like MQA ingredience in an audio meal if it was prepared by a very specific kitchen.

 

 

No. That's another your unproven claim. MQA was basically meant to gain money from ordinary music consumers, as well as audio software and device producers and therefore its propaganda was targeted to everybody who is listening to music. MQA was supported by music labels because of it's 'crown jewel' protection scheme. To continue to be financially supported by labels MQA needed mass success. Telling that MQA was "really only meant for Hi End audiophile users ONLY" is therefore a nonsense. MQA infiltrated itself easier into device market but it failed to reach any significant success in audio content production and mastering area. MQA flooded Tidal by mass devaluation of already produced audio content. Tidal is targeted to mass public - not audiophiles.

You should go back and read my original posts I never said you needed a $20K sound system its taken out of context - I said: 

IF MQA had said that then they wouldn't have sold MQA to there customers in the first place.

 

The other comment is taken out of context as well. 

 

But the truth is it needs a hell of a sound system to be able to hear the benefits.

[Fx Studio]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

I certainly believe that you're hearing a difference, but you're wrong about it being from "time smearing correction". We know now for a fact that MQA does, if anything the opposite.

Again, I will say instead of talking endlessly GO AND DO YOUR OWN TESTING - THEN YOU WILL KNOW that the time smearing correction does work very well.  I am going to leave it there.....

 

 

[Fx Studio]

54 minutes ago, bogi said:

 

 

You brought those claims, although you formulated them as "IF MQA had said". It's from your head. Such a claims were never formulated by MQA representatives. Therefore they are your claims.

 

So not '$20 k sound system' but exactly 'a hell of a sound system' ? OK...

Its hypothetical that should be obvious.

 

Yes correct, you need 'a hell of a sound system'  to hear the benefits of the MQA time smearing correction.

 

 

[Fx Studio]

40 minutes ago, bogi said:

 

That your claim is "very different" from your hypothetical claim. I stand corrected. 🤩

THIS IS WHAT I WROTE IN REPLY TO FIREDOG :

Those points were taken out of context - can you understand English?

 

"You make some very good points actually.

I think that MQA's actions have largely been guided by economics so they have been less than straight forward about things.

If they had come out and said you need a minimum $20K++ sound system to really hear the benefits of it then would any streaming company or DAC maker have picked up on it?

The MQA indicator should have had more bits available to it, so it could indicate an old track made up to an MQA (level 1-2) separately from a studio mastered MQA (I don't need it because you can tell the difference in a split second on my sound system) but it has undoubtedly created a heck of a lot of confusion. 

They could have been more transparent about how an studio MQA is achieved i.e. some basic information about the plugin - I don't expect to see a free download of it on there website but at least they could have officially clarify it.

 

And as I said before and as you've said here, why do people want to pay all that extra cost for something that basically can't be heard. I have a set of Adams A7X and have never heard that affect on them - they just don't have the power that the Alcons Pro Ribbons have whereby the sound is delivered as though there was no effective resistance from the air. 

 

All that said, it still doesn't mean that the time smearing correction doesn't work or doesn't exist - it does and it does work very well for this type of system. I think the MQA guys are a bunch of tech heads, who have at its core have a very good product, but who would never have found financing or got it out there in the first place had they straight forwardly said;  this is really only meant for Hi End audiophile users ONLY.

 

And that's why when its exposed they run around with their tail between there legs just ignoring it, because to address it - that's really the only answer they can honestly give. "

[Fx Studio]

4 minutes ago, bogi said:

 

Not an issue with understanding English.

 

Can you exactly specify the difference between (your thought) hypothetical 'a minimum $20K++ sound system' and a non hypothetical 'hell of a sound system' ?

How can others except of you build 'a hell of a sound system'? Can anybody except of you reproduce the MQA time smearing benefit you claim to hear? How should others use your ears and brain to hear the MQA time smearing benefit which you state you hear? What is the objective method to distinguish if you hear a MQA time smearing benefit or you actaually like some kind of distortion?

I already stated so many times - if you want to hear the MQA time smearing correction GO AND HIRE A SET OF ALCONS PA RIBBON SPEAKERS + POWER AMPS that don't resample - and do your own tests its really not that difficult!