MQA is Vaporware

[jhwalker]

Chris, I was told by MQA representatives at RMAF 2016 about Tidal pricing after a discussion where I pressed them about the amount of content converted since T.HE. Show 2016 and how the converted files would be distributed. Then the discussion moved to costs. At some point I commented that was a lot of costs. And asked what will Tidal have to charge? They told me $40 a month.

 

And don't forget your post #2 in Big MQA News, no extra cost is the introductory rate. In case you forgot an introductory price means a higher price is coming.

 

Their letter and website says nothing about an introductory rate.

 

They do say they are "introducing" this to their subscribers for no additional cost - which could mean this is an "introductory rate" - but it is not so stated.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[jhwalker]

Sorry, just a little confused here, Do I need to change the settings MIDI on my iMAC- I use the TIDAL APP and normally I just set the MIDI to 48. I don't see any changes when I clicked on exclusive. I use to have AMARRA for my library and it would automatically change my MIDI settings. I guess I should get an app that do that, or would it be fine to leave my MIDI at 96 all the time.

 

You do not need to make any changes to Audio MIDI. Select your output device, click the configuration (gear) icon next to the device and select "Exclusive". The Tidal app will automatically change the bitrate, etc., to match each track, without any intervention from you.

[jhwalker]

Yet others are saying 297 albums as of this morning. How can reports differ by a factor of 10?

 

Because there are 10x more tracks available in MQA quality via Tidal than are highlighted in the "Masters" section; i.e., they're only calling out about 10% of their total content via the interface, for some reason.

[jhwalker]

... And all albums are just reconverted from redbook, not recorded as MQA...

 

No. Some may have started as Redbook, but most are derived from recent remasters at 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 / 192 / 352.8 / 384.

 

And there is no such thing as "recording as MQA". MQA is a final process, not something that happens during recording. So all MQA recordings will be conversions from the final PCM master, whatever that looks like and however many steps removed from the recording process itself.

[jhwalker]

I recall Bob talking about two different processes, one where they would analyze the master to unpick the ADC artefacts, and another process where the ADC was part of the MQA workflow. Perhaps this second process does not exist yet?

 

Could very well be, and I overlooked it. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[jhwalker]

The most important part of the MQA process is compensating for the encoding characteristics of the ADC used in the recording process rather than the playback DAC.

 

It is this process that is the source of MQA’s claim of their files being superior to the original master.

 

Not the reconverting.

Agreed. But there are no recordings currently available that were made *at the time* with MQA in mind. So all of them are "conversions" of the final master with knowledge (or a guess) as to the ADC that was in use in the original recording - that's all I'm saying.

[jhwalker]

Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that:

 

"If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream)

 

Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique...

 

What is wrong about his statement? The MQA file is compressed in a 24/48 container, but contains (almost) all the data necessary to reconstruct the original 24/192 (or 24/384 or higher) file once it passes through the USB interface.

 

Yes, it's not 100% lossless, but it's pretty darned close (i.e., lossless to 24kHz, very nearly lossless to 48kHz, lossy but containing quite a bit of the original content up to 96kHz, etc.). The part that's missing is clearly inaudible (i.e., a lot of garbage below the noise floor and some of the content above 24kHz).

 

I understand skepticism, but there's quite a bit of rancor going around which is (in my opinion) overblown and misplaced.

[jhwalker]

If only that were the case. My testing shows moderate loss below 20 kHz and substantial degradation at higher frequencies.

 

I saw your results - they were highly divergent from what others have reported (i.e., on Stereophile).

 

I think the underlying tech as described is sound, but feels as if some of the implementation is a bit fractured

[jhwalker]

It's wrong because words have meaning. PCM implies a known code, it has a technical and repeatable definition, and my DAC (as all) can process it. MQA is not PCM because of the very things you say - iand my DAC can not process it - not the important part, not the "hi res" part, not the part justify's MQA existence and not the part that is the reason the industry wants it (i.e. DRM). Words have meaning.

 

I will say more later - got to run!

 

No one is saying or implying MQA is PCM - not sure where you're getting that.

[jhwalker]

Bob Stuart says (in the Q & A found right here on this site):

 

"MQA audio is PCM in a world of PCM..."

 

"Yes. The MQA stream is PCM..."

 

I recall one of Bob's marketing folks saying "MQA is just PCM" with some emphasis in a video but can't recall where now. The point is that this false eqivalency is a marketing strategy - meant to ease your mind into accepting a codec that is in fact as different from your PCM as it is from DSD or MP3...

 

Well, of course he's right - MP3 and MQA, both, are PCM, as well, as are WMA, AAC, ALAC, FLAC, etc.

 

But I see your point - I'd not seen that specific claim, and I agree they are trying to minimize the difference between full-resolution, lossless, PCM (e.g., WAV, AIFF, ALAC, FLAC) and compressed / folded, somewhat lossy PCM (MQA).

[jhwalker]

Back to the "vaporware" discussion. I currently count 496 "MASTER" albums on Tidal. They're still quite short of 30,000 tracks.

 

There are over 500 albums featured on the front page, under the "Masters" section. But for every one of those, there are several more available in Master quality that are not featured - I've found lots of them myself.

 

Their announcement was that they were "live" with 30k tracks, and I see no reason to doubt that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[jhwalker]

According to the above cited Wikipedia DRM definition: If you cannot play hires content of MQA file or stream with any software or hardware, this is DRM.

 

How is this different from a FLAC high resolution (say, 24/192) file? You cannot play the hi-res content of such a FLAC file or stream without specific hardware or software - is this *also* DRM?

[jhwalker]

Pure unadulterated pro-MQA propaganda. Bravo sir, you've earned your pay for the week!

 

How is a summary of true statements "propaganda"? You're being ridiculous.

[jhwalker]

Playing 24/192 FLAC on 24/192 capable DAC does not require the DAC to be certified by the 'FLAC company'. You can play 24/192 FLAC content on any 24/192 capable DAC.

OK, so it's not the ability / inability to playback the files or streams without a capable software or DAC, it's the "certification" you object to. Thanks.

[jhwalker]

You're certainly entitled to believe "truth" comes from for-profit media outlets.

 

Wow. Whatever.

[jhwalker]

I absolutely consider the restriction on MQA to be a form of DRM.

 

Any audio file that I am unable to convert to another format and play back at full resolution, I consider to have DRM.

 

It's fine for streaming but I wouldn't buy an album in MQA unless it was the only option, and that in and of itself would be a pretty strong deterrent.

 

I would definitely buy straight up redbook before I would buy MQA.

 

So you consider *any* lossy format (e.g., MP3, AAC, WMA) or lossy transform (e.g., PCM <> DSD) to be a form of DRM? I think we're getting a bit hysterical about "DRM"

[jhwalker]

Now can someone explain to me, is there any way to see the DRM restrictions in these MQA files that Tidal is supposed to be offering their paying Hi-Fi users. I understand I can't play a full MQA file on a non certified DAC, but how is it we can still play part of the file. IS it those same restrictions that is preventing a full MQA presence.

 

There are no "restrictions". *ANYONE* can play the files at ~ CD quality.

 

If you have an MQA-enabled software player (Tidal desktop, for example), you will get the first level of additional quality ("unfolding" to 88.2 or 96/24). If you also have an MQA renderer, you can get the full playback experience when used with an MQA-enabled software player. If you have an MQA-enabled DAC, you can get the whole kit and kaboodle.

[jhwalker]

Is Roon via the upcoming software release supposed to be able to totally decode a MQA file and a certified MQA DAC will not be needed ??

 

No one has specified what the Roon release will look like, but it seems the MQA software decoder is limited to the first "unfolding" only; i.e., the 2x rates (88.2 / 96). I believe this will be consistent with all software based on the MQA code, notwithstanding the software's ability to do *additional* processing (e.g., Audirvana presumably will be able to do additional upsampling *after* the MQA decoding).

 

It's all really new, so it will probably take a while for this all to shake out.

[jhwalker]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

I want only lossless downloads.

Frankly, I'd like to see both options continue to be offered.

 

Lossless is intended to fully digitize the original session (albeit with lots of wasted space using a traditional rectangular PCM matrix), complete with any digital distortions, etc., introduced along the way.

 

MQA is purported to clean up the original session (i.e., make it even better), reduce the wasted space in the resultant file by refusing to encode noise below the floor and empty space above the audibility threshold ("triangular" matrix), and allow clean up at the other end, as well.

 

To my ears, MQA sounds "different" and, in some cases, "better".  Other listeners, including folks with much better ears than I, also say it sounds better.

 

I'd hate to kill a nascent technology that *may* provide better outcome(s) just because "I only want lossless downloads".

[jhwalker]

6 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

But that's the problem, the MQA replace the lossless offerings as they're released and you can't have both.

And this is the way all the powers that be want it. They'll all be on the $ MQA gravy train and don't care if your SQ is better, the same, or worse.

 

 

Can you point to a release yet where this has happened?  So far, every new release I've seen streaming in MQA has also been available in lossless format.

 

Not to say it will never happen, and I stated my preference was to retain *both* - but it isn't happening now, so far as I can see.

[jhwalker]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

MQA/Tidal/Audioquest seems to still be stuck on getting MQA Core working on ARM processors.  AQ is way behind on that firmware update for the new Dragonflys, apparently blaming Tidal.  But I've heard the actual code comes from MQA themselves.

 

I know of two software MQA Core implementations: Tidal desktop and Audirvana+ 3.0.  Are there any others?

 

 

 

Not that I know of - wild to see such slow rollout (over two years now!), and maybe it will die on the vine.

 

I have very little skin in this game - the only thing I have that is MQA compatible is the Meridian Explorer 2, and I'm not buying any MQA files either, just streaming.  I'd just like to see it given a chance to succeed.

[jhwalker]

5 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Where's the bandwidth savings in that?

Don't worry, they'll all be gone soon from MQA streamers and probably the downloaders like HDTracks too.

 

Every stream that is done in MQA vs. lossless is a net savings in bandwidth.  Storage is another story

[jhwalker]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

assuming arguendo that MQA can (and will) produce better SQ, that increment has to be adequate to make up for the detriment in consumer control over their property when they buy music

 

-- not claiming that the consumer owns it all in toto, but using the analogy that property is a bundle of sticks, the consumer owns some of those sticks

 

What is the difference in ownership rights between owning a "pure" MP3, AAC, FLAC, ALAC, WAV, AIFF and the same file encoded with MQA?

[jhwalker]

26 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

MQA (apparently) restricts what the owner can do with the file, as in moving it to a different player or storage medium.

 

After long experience with copy-protected software and loss of work from having its protection go haywire, not to mention the extra hassle of fixing it, i now avoid it like the plague.

 

No, it doesn't.  MQA files are completely transportable, just like any other audio file.

 

Where did you hear this?

[jhwalker]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

On this and other boards.

 

Where did you hear of an iron-clad guarantee that MQA files will always be completely transportable to other media and to other components??

 

Nowhere.  

 

Where did you hear of an iron-clad guarantee that FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, WAV, et al, files will always be completely transportable to other media and to other components??  

 

No one has ever made any sort of statement about *any* encoding method - why should MQA be held to a different standard?  Seriously not following your argument.