MQA is Vaporware

[Norton]

just trying to get facts out and perspective in place. Based on classic definitions of the term vaporware, MQA is most certainly vaporware.

 

Vaporware - "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed."

 

I'm not an advocate for MQA as I'm not interested in streaming services and I can't see that MQA downloads would better existing hi res PCM and DSD formats. But, I can walk to my local HIFi dealer in the UK and buy an MQA DAC today and download MQA music from 2l right now if I wanted to, so it most certainly is not vaporware according to that definition.

 

As I understand it, the consumer is free to make multiple identical copies of an MQA download, the "drm" angle only comes into play in: 1. assuring the provenance of the file and 2. that you need a MQA licensed player/DAC to get the apparent full SQ potential. The former seems a completely benign application of DRM; as for the latter, is there anything wrong in the owner of intellectual and artistic property seeking to protect their work and investment? I don't work for free and judging by the disposable income on display here, neither do/did most members of this forum.

 

If you don't like MQA, don't buy it. I have no plans to, but am open minded enough that if the results vs other formats merited it (which I doubt) I would happily buy into a "closed" system. Just as I did with SACD until the advent of reliable ripping.

 

Also the idea that DSD/SACD is also a failed or non-viable format is nonsense. I buy on average 5-10 recent releases on SACD and download each month; for me it's the default digital format for classical music.

[Norton]

This thread is a discussion/debate on whether or not MQA is "vaporware". There are many other technical and listening threads on MQA at CA. You might find one of those more in line with what you're looking for.

 

I would have thought that Tintinabulum's post was de facto evidence that MQA is not vaporware: "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed."

 

I have no interest in MQA but the premise of this thread is absurd bearing in mind I can buy an MQA DAC on the high street of my small English town and download or stream MQA titles today. Therefore MQA is by definition not vaporware. Does anything more need to be said?

[Norton]

Norton

 

I love posts like yours. Bottom up thinkers who think if a few can be bought it must be real. Look at Tidal from the top down. They have 46.2 million tracks, 30,000 tracks converted to MQA is irrelevant. If every currently available hi-res track was converted to MQA and put on Tidal you would still have less than 200,000 tracks to choose from (15,000 x 12).

 

I consider any process, proposed standard or format less than .25% of the population to be vaporware. When it gets to 1 % of the population then let’s talk about whether the format is commercially viable.

 

I would like you to do something for me. Tell me what you project the royalty revenue to be for the MQA songs on Tidal for January 2017 to MQA LTD. Then convince me that number has any value other than MQA can now say they have a revenue stream.

 

I think you misunderstand my point. Whether MQA is commercially viable is an entirely reasonable matter for debate, on which I have no view and less interest. But to discuss whether something which is freely available to buy today is vaporware is ridiculous and ultimately pointless. I'm sure we could all generate similar long and pointless threads on any topic if we too chose to egocentrically redefine common English usage.

[Norton]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Chris,

Just tell me when I can purchase and download the following MQA albums in The Valley of the Sun:

1.       Foghat Foghat

2.       Black Oak Arkansas Black Oak Arkansas

3.       Eagles On the Border

4.       Halestorm Into The Wild

5.       Jackson Browne Running on Empty

6.       Chicago Chicago Transit Authority

They are all available on TIDAL in the US and I believe in Europe for download. Why is my side of MQA so hard for you? I can’t buy MQA albums. It is no harder than that.

 

Your take on MQA is hard to agree with because, on an audiophile site, you are offering a critique based on market considerations rather than SQ/listening experience and  a pretty idiosyncratic market analysis at that.  I have no interest in the music you list, while at the same time SACD (which I'm sure has been dismissed as a failed or dead format somewhere in the 2000 posts of your thread) provides me with music I'm interested  in and continues to do so with new releases.  I've been very happy to live with the "DRM" considerations of SACD, in return for top quality recordings at very reasonable prices.  If MQA delivered the same I would have no problem.  As an aside, based on the Linn and RR discs I own, HDCD is/was a great sounding format and something of a lost opportunity.

[Norton]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Streaming is, by actual numbers, taking over the marketplace from downloads.  As it does, the availability of artists many of us like but who weren't hugely popular in their day, and the availability of masterings with reasonable DR levels from artists who *were* hugely popular, fades away.  Good luck looking for reasonably priced used CDs at local shops or on eBay, Amazon, etc.

 

I don't know if this is actually happening, but compared to the fuss about MQA, it's certainly a much more plausible concern that streaming will develop to the point where "possessable" media, along with the consumer choices therein,  are no longer available.

[Norton]

51 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Find a post where I said there was foul play.

 

It is all about MOTIVES, and who gains from what.  I know for a FACT that MQA has recruited dealers to shill for MQA.

 

 

 

And what are your motives?  You joined on October 5th, you've made 40 posts so far, 37 of which are specifically to criticise MQA.  Why are you on this forum and what are you adding positively to the Computer Audiophile community?

[Norton]

17 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

My positive addition is ridding the "Computer Audiophile" community of the cancer known as MQA.. fake format

marketed on numerous lies. Oh yeh, and it is lossy.

 

Looks like you've lost all perspective and sense of proportion, this  is domestic music replay we are talking about, not a world war...

[Norton]

26 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

audiophiles blather on about being True To The Source.

 

 

 

 

If that is how you regard audiophiles, to repeat myself, why are you posting on this audiophile forum?

[Norton]

27 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

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

 

Is that the best reply you can muster? 

 

So you join this forum pretty much exclusively to slag off MQA, clearly  hold audiophiles in contempt and don't appear to have anything positive to contribute to the field of computer audio.  If anything you are making me think maybe there's something in this MQA after all....

 

 

 

 

[Norton]

13 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Seriously, is there is something wrong with your comprehension? What is the title of this thread? What is the topic

of this thread?  When I need your advice on what content to post and on what threads I will drop you a line.

 

On the contrary, I comprehend you only too well...

[Norton]

12 hours ago, rwdvis said:

So I guess that makes it okay then?  Others do it, so have at it all you MQA shills.

 

You know there is a difference between shilling, and marketing and promoting a product, don’t you?

Wow, this says something about you.  You realize there’s a difference between shilling and marketing, promoting and representing a product, don’t you?  Shilling involves lying, harm and deception.  You’re okay with that?  Is shilling permitted on your site?  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were confusing marketing and promotion with shilling.

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

 

I would argue that it’s a bad business decision for companies to use shills.  Once it becomes obvious that shills are being used, and it should be obvious at this point in the case of MQA, then the company loses all credibility.  It demonstrates that there’s not much the business has to offer, so it has to rely on lies and deception to sell whatever it is it’s selling.

It sure looks that way.  And now apparently even trying to defend the act of shilling.  

 

Typically, Chris’ activity on the forum is pretty light, but when a new MQA shill appears he suddenly becomes more active and the majority of his responses directed at critics.

 

Just as a matter of interest, who are the schills for MQA on this site that you describe above?

 

[Norton]

58 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

I note that TAS appear to be happy to quote the press release verbatim, probably no surprise based on previous observations noted in this thread.  

 

I think you are viewing everything through the lens of perceived conspiracy, it's pretty normal to quote press releases verbatim in the news section of audio media; it's not claiming to be a review of the Oppo.

[Norton]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Everyone should visit The Absolute Sound site and Check out Andrew Quint's Aurender A-10 review. Quite a bit different than Stereophile's.

 

I just did -quite some endorsement:

 

"..my consistent observation was that the MQA’d material sounded better—with all genres, at various levels of resolution, with both analog and digital originals. That’s my opinion. What I hope everyone can agree on is that high-resolution MQA files sound very much superior to the same content played back at Red Book resolution"

[Norton]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Unlike you I had a great sounding stereo system in my youth so to me there isn't a much superior to me only increments of improvement. I chalk up his superlatives to inexperience.

 

I wasn't  aware we were that well acquainted, or indeed that our respective systems in our youth had any bearing on a month-old TAS review you were encouraging us to read  and from which I simply quoted verbatim.  On reflection, perhaps drawing our attention to this review was something of an own goal in your one man anti-MQA crusade, along with your inaccurate assertions re. Meridian's Direct DAC, which just seemed like a desperate  attempt to find some evidence to fit your preferred narrative.

 

But please share details of you system.  A positive contribution to the field of Computer Audio does seem relatively lacking in your 548 posts so far.  I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to think, mistakenly, that  you only came  onto this site to slag  off MQA.

 

 

[Norton]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

As for my system see KIH 34 & 35 that pretty much covers it. My actual contributions to computer audio are hidden behind NDAs.

 

I want to thank you for keeping people focused on this site while I'm working on things behind the scenes. When we get past MQA you will see a positive thing I'm doing for the audio industry. 

 

 

 

You joined this site in August 2016 and have already amassed 549 posts, by a rough estimate over 80% of which concern  MQA.  I may be wrong, but I've never noticed you seeking or offering advice or opinions  on OSs, replay software, servers, DACs etc like other members do, or making much contribution  to the music threads for example.  But you have created more than one overtly negative thread about MQA, including the offer of cash to other members to debunk articles about MQA prior to publication.

 

Your posts frequently include quite deliberate hints at possible industry connections, yet you always stop short of fully explaining these.  To quote just the most recent example, I would have thought that someone whose "contributions to computer audio are hidden behind NDAs" should, under rules made clear by Chris in other cases, declare their connection to the industry and their true identity.  Or maybe you're just an ordinary joe with delusions of grandeur: " When we get past MQA you will see a positive thing I'm doing for the audio industry."?

 

You are clearly on an anti-MQA crusade, constantly trying to make even the most tangental facts fit your chosen  narrative.  That in itself is OK (I have no particular knowledge of or connection with MQA),  but for me your  contributions to this site would be better received if I felt more certain as to your relationship to the industry and ultimate motivation.

 

 

 

 

[Norton]

4 hours ago, rwdvis said:

 

 

You may be able to fool some but I have zero doubt you have some connection to MQA, the industry, or even CA directly.  Your continued defense of MQA and constant responses to critics is odd.  Too odd.  Now you’re baiting and trying to set up some of the most vocal critics in order to silence and eliminate with this “what positive contributions” nonsense.  You’re attempting to set a narrative to give Chris some seeming justification for banning, or at least silencing.  Your tactic is to bait, anger, misdirect and raise suspicion to get a reaction and then Chris steps in with the “recently banned critic X made no positive contribution to the site and our wonderful hobby” line.

 

You’re using the same tactic as Chris was regarding MQA.  Which is/was, faux-neutrality and constant “friendly” advice on how to conduct oneself when critiquing MQA (ie., don’t say too many bad things about MQA, or else).  You’re also trying to redirect critics to some other topics.  You’d rather the critics spend their time in other areas of the site, obviously, so less time is spent on examining and critiquing MQA.  Odd.  Why is it that someone who claims to have little knowledge of, connection with, or interest in MQA be so concerned with what others do with their time regarding MQA?  For someone who claims to have “no particular knowledge of or connection with MQA” you seem to be awfully concerned with those who examine and critique it.

 

For those who feel the need to jump in and tell me I’m off the mark, read this particular line carefully and actually think for a minute, and then conclude.  It should be clear.

 

“I’m sure you wouldn't want anyone to think, mistakenly, that  you only came  onto this site to slag  off MQA.”

 

You are a fool wrapped up in your little boys' war about an audio format.

 

You joined in July of this year, have posted 19 times, all but 3 in criticism of MQA and you think my activity is suspicious!

By contrast I joined in 2010, have over a 1000 posts, the vast majority having nothing to do with MQA

 

I've noticed a trend for new members to join in the last 18 months who post promiscuously in criticism of MQA but otherwise show little interest in Computer Audio or participating more generally in this community.  I actually care about this site as a community for the positive advancement of Computer Audio, rather than to serve personal agendas and vendettas, so I find this development concerning.

 

But as you care so much about bona fides:

 

1. I have never worked for in any capacity, nor had any form of business or professional relationship with any individual or organisation involved in any way with the recorded music or audio industries or related journalism;

 

2. 1. I do not know, socially, anyone involved in any way with the recorded music or audio industries or related  journalism;

 

3. I don't stream music, don't own a MQA compatible  DAC (despite spending over $2k on a DAC in the last month), or any MQA downloads.  I have never heard MQA replay.

 

As a challenge to you, Rt66indierock and anyone else joining in the last  18 months and posting mainly in criticism of MQA, can I respectfully ask you to confirm the same?  

 

If you are not prepared to confirm #1 then you should be making your connection to the industry clear on this site, so we can understand where you are coming from, and of course using your real name.

[Norton]

42 minutes ago, Shadders said:

 

For me, i was expecting MQA to be a solution to a known current problem in audio (as of 2014 when first reported), but the revelation is that it is a scam. I am very disappointed, that Meridian has produced such a format. I expected more of such a well regarded British audio engineering company.

 

 

 

People may disagree as to the merits of MQA, but only a very few would actually call it a scam, which I interpret to mean a deliberate act of criminal deception.(I'm sure though one or two will be along to that effect shortly) 

 

I'm interested though that you condemn it so strongly seemingly based purely on what you have read on this site, without even hearing it.  That just confirms my concerns about the uses to which this site is now being applied.  I've never heard it, but I note that at least some who have seem to  think it has some merit.

 

If it interests you, why not listen and then come back with your impressions?

[Norton]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

 

Do you expect people to delve into the menus and change this setting depending on what they happen to be playing?

 

Is that such a big deal, really?  Every DAC  I've owned in recent years has required me to go into a menu to change input, filter etc. It's hardly laying the foundation  of world audio domination.

[Norton]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Any entity that states falsehoods with regards to the system they have created, with a view to extract money from every part of the audio chain, is a scammer.

The engineering analysis by people on this site shows that MQA claims are false. Try to focus on the engineering analysis and conclusion, rather than your disagreement with the analysis without countering the engineering conclusions. If you do not agree with the analysis, provide your own which confirms MQA is correct.

Does the problem that MQA states that is solved, actually exist ?. The analysis in these threads shows that it does not exist with current recording technology.

 

What about old recordings - they state that they correct the "temporal blur". Temporal blur is dispersion (an engineering term). Dispersion occurs on transmission lines - due to the different frequencies either being attenuated or delayed compared to other frequencies. A perfect rectangular pulse will be stretched, and rounded off. You can never recover the perfect pulse - only approximate it with or without the addition of "guessed" higher frequency information - it will still have curved edges etc. So how can MQA recover the temporal blur in audio, if every track that makes up a song undergoes different temporal blurs ? It cannot. Maybe, the added information is harmonics as per Brian Lucey statement that harmonics exist in MQA tracks ?. We will never know due to the NDA. Maybe this is why people like it - even order harmonics.

 

Then there are the aliasing filters - very poor design.

 

The disagreement with MQA is simply engineering analysis - so i do not see why it is an issue for you. This site is a forum - people are using it exactly the way it was intended to be used. Again, if you disagree with the points, engineering or otherwise, then provide your alternative analysis.

 

For your last statement - i am interested in the technical analysis - so hearing MQA is not something i am interested in. If you can follow the engineering arguments, you will understand how pernicious MQA is.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

As I say, I'm not particularly  interested in MQA.    You indicated however that you were interested in MQA, until apparently you read the comments on this site.  I think that's sad.  If it was me I'd certainly take these comments on board, but make my own mind up by listening, which is after all, the object of audio.

[Norton]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Norton,

In your country I would be the equivalent of the managing partner of a chartered accounting firm. My final career jump caused me to move about 2,500 miles west. I currently derive no revenue from high end audio, studios, and less than 1% from artists which are mostly classical. When I was in Washington DC we had artists, studios and computer industry people and companies as clients. I grew up in the Silicon Forest and signed my first NDA when I was nineteen in the broadcasting industry and many more in the computer industry after that partly because I’m good at testing things.

 

I didn’t know a single person alive in high end audio until T.H.E. Show in Irvine California in the middle of 2016. I know a lot people now and casually interact with a larger number of people. But those aren’t industry connections until I get revenue from them.

 

I have no delusions grandeur I heard eight people say similar things about how to market audio to millennials and I’m going to help organize these thoughts. Something that is a lot easier to do when you are not affiliated with any companies considered high end audio vendors.

 

Ultimate motivation is simple. MQA does not and will not put money in artists and studios pockets so the format has no value.

 

Thankyou for this  full and frank account. I genuinely appreciate it and will consider your posts in a more positive light as a result.  

 

I had already surmised that your industry connections were most likely to centre on financial matters surrounding artists and studios; but noting your last sentence, is this the full extent of  your motivation for  campaigning against MQA?  I'd feel even more well disposed to your arguments if I felt they were also being made with the audiophile interest at heart.

[Norton]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

 

 

My objections to MQA relevant to audiophiles are Tom Petty is thicker sounding when it should be thinner sounding. There is thinness to many other recordings I’ve listened to in studios, my office and home. And I have preliminary model of how MQA alters the sound and placement of instruments. But I haven’t tested MQA yet because my reference albums and the six I listed earlier in this thread available in Europe aren’t available in the United States to do even preliminary testing.

 

Norton when my reference albums are available I will write about how MQA alters the sound and invite others to repeat my tests and report what they heard.

 

Thanks, an interesting account.  

 

However I expect we  will have to agree to differ on at least one thing - I've been listening to a lot of MQA in the last few days and I certainly wouldn't characterise it as thin sounding (and my amps and DAC are not known for a "warm" sound).  In contrast I'm hearing a rich "reach  out and touch" kind of  sound that I generally think is the province of good vinyl.  However, admittedly I'm only listening to the first unfold on to my (non MQA) Esoteric DAC, not the full MQA experience.

 

I thought of you when I noticed plenty of Foghat titles as I browsed the Tidal Masters spreadsheet....

[Norton]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

And you still haven't given any kind of substantial answer to your claim that MQA is needed to get more hi-res released to streaming. 

MQA isn't necessary for streaming hi-res. All those files being released for streaming as MQA could be released not in MQA. 

 

That may be the case, but yesterday I was streaming the Barenboim Elgar symphonies, glitch free wirelessly over my sub-par network,  via Tidal/MQA at 96 kHz ( the same resolution  as the non MQA downloads)  to my non MQA DAC.    These are recordings I am very familiar with and they sounded impressive.  

 

Theoretically your argument may be correct, but I'm not aware, in practice, of  many other services (Qobuz possibly?) that stream reliably at 96 kHz. In 2018, streaming  RBCD still seems a big deal (and a cost option) for most.

 

I'm sure MQA would argue they actually support streaming up to 384kHz, but I am aware that subsequent unfolds are consider by many to be simply proprietary upsampling and I don't have a MQA DAC by which to judge comparative SQ.

 

 

[Norton]

Deleted

[Norton]

25 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Not 'considered'. 'Considered' still has the possibility that it is not more than an opinion, whereas it is a hard, objective fact that after the (misnamed) 'first unfold' only upsampling happens. And this upsampling remains under the MQA aegis until the original master's sampling rate is reached.

 

This is the process for a 384k master:

 

-downsample to 192k with leaky MQA filter

-downsample to 96k with leaky MQA filter

-fold into 48k space using Quadrature Mirror Filter pair 1 (*)

=============================================

-unfold 48k to 96k using Quadrature Mirror Filter pair 2

-upsample to 192k using leaky filter

-upsample to 384k using leaky filter

-light the blue LED

 

 

(* As an aside: the output of QMF1 is what people without MQA decoding have to listen to.

QMF1 has to be optimised to allow a lossless split-join in the origami folding step. This is an

extremely limiting constraint. This means that QMF1 cannot likely be optimised, at the same time,

for optimal sound quality for non-MQA listening. This is mathematics.)

 

 

I suspect the fact that we are currently discussing MQA is incidental, could just as well be about vinyl.

 

Fundamentally this is "objective, v. "subjective".  You raise technical objections about MQA, I come  back with the fact that my DAC tells me it's receiving a MQA stream at 96kHz which in turn sounds to me every bit as good, if not better,  than my 24/96 non-MQA download copy.

 

Bearing in mind that it is most likely to be used in streaming services, concerns about DRM specific to MQA seem at best to be "deckchair rearrangement"

[Norton]

41 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

What you might be witnessing might not be the genius of MQA, but rather the hard work of many network engineers. You also happen to, maybe inadvertently, be making the exact same point that a number of others have been making, which is that bandwidth is abundant enough that MQA-as-compression is a solution looking for a problem, and not a solution to a problem.

 

Let's break it down.

 

@Miska posted a filesize comparison between MQA and FLAC right here.

 

TL;DR: FLAC, at identical resolution, is, give or take, 30% smaller. A 44.1/24 MQA file, which if I'm not mistaken unfolds to 96Khz, is only about 6% smaller than 176.4/18 FLAC. Since you've determined that your playback chain can deal with either, which would you rather have: MQA, or 176.4/18 ?

 

You can argue that Miska's post is based on a single file, and I agree with you that it'd be nice to have a wider pool to compare to, if only because the bitrate of FLAC compression fluctuates based on a number of factors, including content, so let's have a quick look at what it generally takes to stream FLAC, with a simple, comparative criteria to see if your "sub-par" network (I'm sure it isn't ) is fast enough to reliably do that.

 

Uncompressed CD-DA (or redbook) is 1,411.2 kbps.

96/24 FLAC is around a 1500 kbps (let's say 2000 Kbps to be comfortable).

192/24 FLAC is around twice that, let's make it 4000 Kbps.

 

You know what else is around those numbers ? That HD button on YouTube. According to Google, 720p (not 1080p, not 4k, but lowly 720p) is between 1,500 and 4,000 Kbps. Does that ballpark remind you of anything ?

 

In practical terms, if you have bandwidth enough to stream 720p YouTube videos, and assuming your streaming service has a good CDN (which they should, that's part of what you're paying them for, after all), you could just as easily stream HiRes FLAC rather than MQA. Put in wider terms, the pool of consumers that could comfortably stream FLAC is smaller than those who can comfortably stream Netflix in HD. And to keep with your anecdote, if you can reliably stream MQA, you could reliably stream uncompressed redbook. Doesn't that make you want to go out and hug one of those hardworking networking engineers at the manufacturer for you networking gear, at Tidal, and at your ISP, that made it possible ?

 

Again, this is theory vs practice.  My  point simply as a civilian audiophile is that Tidal/MQA is offering me what I consider to be, in certain cases at least, true  96kHz streaming today.  I'm not aware that anyone else offers that, other than maybe Qobuz.

 

According to the 2l site, a MQA file is c. half the size of the 24/96 equivalent, I'm sure that has something to do with it.