MQA is Vaporware

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

I just switched my streaming subscription from Tidal to Qobuz. Nothing directly to do with MQA. But as a side effect, I'm happy to vote with my money and not give my support to MQA. Qobuz doesn't seem to be "supporting" MQA-they are giving us full hi-res - they just seem to have been caught unawares by a tricky bit of marketing by 2L.

 

@Lee Scoggins : why is it a big deal? First, it's deceptive by 2L. Audiophiles who see 16/44.1 believe they are getting a standard Redbook file. MQA isn't that, and it also isn't a full 16/44.1 file. Even Qobuz wasn't aware 2L had sent them "MQA-CD" (itself a deceptive term) instead of actual Redbook.
Second, ever since MQA hit the market, many of us have said that one of the reasons we don't want it to succeed is that the time would come when only MQA versions of albums would be available. MQA, you, and the other MQA fanboy/apologists told us this wouldn't happen. MQA means more choice...blah, blah. This deceptive move by 2L shows us that we probably were right, and can only wait for actual hi-res versions of albums to disappear, and only fake hi-res distributed by MQA to remain.

And please don't tell me again that I should be happy about this b/c MQA sounds so good, is good for the "industry", etc. None of that means anything to me.

 

I like Qobuz but after playing with it for several months, you should be aware that many albums are only offered in 16/44.  I don't blame Qobuz for this as they are at the mercy of what the labels give them but I have been disappointed at times that we don't have hirez files for some popular albums like Dark Side of the Moon among others.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

You really need to look up the words "better" and "choice" in a dictionary.

 

Morten went on to say:

Quote

There is absolutely no proprietary limitations or DRM to our distributed 16/44 WAV files. Just the added bonus of a potential unfold to those customers who use Roon, Audirvana, Amarra and/or an MQA enabled DAC.

 

So in that respect it is enabling choice.

 

As for better, the temporal improvements cover that.

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Well you are missing out on some great sound.  Many MQA files on Tidal and elsewhere sound fantastic.

Doubtful Lee, my sample size is big enough that I have a pretty normal distribution of sound quality. The middle is no different and a a different sort of different but not better. There are some that sound better and some that sound worse just like any other format.

[mav52]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I like Qobuz but after playing with it for several months, you should be aware that many albums are only offered in 16/44.  I don't blame Qobuz for this as they are at the mercy of what the labels give them but I have been disappointed at times that we don't have hirez files for some popular albums like Dark Side of the Moon among others.

Interesting the Dark Side of the moon pulled up to play using the desktop app, shows 24/44 and has Hi-rez noted. 

[wdw]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Morten went on to say:

 

So in that respect it is enabling choice.

 

As for better, the temporal improvements cover that.

 

 

Lee,

As per the post on the MQA CD thread, you are selectively quoting from a form letter from 2L...see full letter below.  

 

Hi #####!

For two years now we have distributed MQA16 in WAV 16-44 to all services limited to CD-quality like Spotify, Apple, and low-tier Qobuz, simply because it sounds way better than regular RedBook. For true HiRes download and streaming services we provide both MQA24 and straight PCM up to and including our DXD source without MQA. I believe in full transparency and for our customers to make their own choice with premium subscriptions.

 

We use MQA technology as an embedded tool in our mastering process for 16/44 WAV, just like any other sonic tool used for a mastering process to produce the intended sonic delivery. There is absolutely no proprietary limitations or DRM to our distributed 16/44 WAV files. Just the added bonus of a potential unfold to those customers who use Roon, Audirvana, Amarra and/or an MQA enabled DAC.

To be precise: What streaming customers at Qobuz now experience is our 16-bit 44.1 WAV with embedded MQA-technology, not our dedicated 24-bit MQA encoded masters. For HiRes download service Qobuz have our 4*fs FLAC without MQA, but due to the migration from Phonofile to The Orchard I believe Qobuz is now in a limbo with our HiRes FLAC files only available for download but not for streaming.

 

Morten Lindberg

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Morten went on to say:

Quote

There is absolutely no proprietary limitations or DRM to our distributed 16/44 WAV files. Just the added bonus of a potential unfold to those customers who use Roon, Audirvana, Amarra and/or an MQA enabled DAC.

So in that respect it is enabling choice.

How is requiring a licensed decoder to play the files enabling choice? Perhaps you have forgotten the meaning of the word "enable" as well.

 

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

As for better, the temporal improvements cover that.

Yes, we've covered that before. It's bullshit.

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

So I think Morten just feels MQA files of 16/44 are better for his customers.  Everything else seems to be available without MQA.  This seems a reasonable position to me.

matter o

Morten goes on to say that 2L uses MQA in their 16/44 process. So it seems it was a f offering customers better sound quality, not about restricting customer choice.

Morten is entitled to his opinion. "Better" is his. Many disagree. So by not offering standard Redbook, he is restricting consumer choice. That's simply a fact. The fact that you agree with his approach doesn't change the facts. You can't spin your way around it - although I know you will try.

In any case, if he doesn't inform his streaming partners and customers that MQA is what he is providing, he is claiming to provide one thing and actually providing something else. That may actually be illegal. 

MQA isn't actually 16/44.1, and cannot accurately be called that or be called Redbook. 
I for one won't be buying any of his product till, at a minimum, stops his deceptive practices. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Consumers should also call things what they are such as Lossy MQA and Lossy MQA-CD-13. Let's get rid of the ambiguity and help people understand what they are getting and talking about. 

I will now start calling it MQA 13 bit. 

[firedog]

14 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I like Qobuz but after playing with it for several months, you should be aware that many albums are only offered in 16/44.  I don't blame Qobuz for this as they are at the mercy of what the labels give them but I have been disappointed at times that we don't have hirez files for some popular albums like Dark Side of the Moon among others.

I look at the "hi-res" as a bonus. I'm more concerned about getting Redbook quality streaming and discounts on buying downloads.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

I will now start calling it MQA 13 bit. 

That's not accurate either.

[firedog]

Just now, mansr said:

That's not accurate either.

Okay, what do you suggest? What most clearly and briefly gets across the point that it isn't true 16.44.1?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Okay, what do you suggest? What most clearly and briefly gets across the point that it isn't true 16.44.1?

How about MP3+?

[psjug]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

How about MP3+?

 

What's misleading about calling it 13-bit?

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/87435.html

[Lee Scoggins]

24 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

 

Lee,

As per the post on the MQA CD thread, you are selectively quoting from a form letter from 2L...see full letter below.  

 

Hi #####!

For two years now we have distributed MQA16 in WAV 16-44 to all services limited to CD-quality like Spotify, Apple, and low-tier Qobuz, simply because it sounds way better than regular RedBook. For true HiRes download and streaming services we provide both MQA24 and straight PCM up to and including our DXD source without MQA. I believe in full transparency and for our customers to make their own choice with premium subscriptions.

 

We use MQA technology as an embedded tool in our mastering process for 16/44 WAV, just like any other sonic tool used for a mastering process to produce the intended sonic delivery. There is absolutely no proprietary limitations or DRM to our distributed 16/44 WAV files. Just the added bonus of a potential unfold to those customers who use Roon, Audirvana, Amarra and/or an MQA enabled DAC.

To be precise: What streaming customers at Qobuz now experience is our 16-bit 44.1 WAV with embedded MQA-technology, not our dedicated 24-bit MQA encoded masters. For HiRes download service Qobuz have our 4*fs FLAC without MQA, but due to the migration from Phonofile to The Orchard I believe Qobuz is now in a limbo with our HiRes FLAC files only available for download but not for streaming.

 

Morten Lindberg

 

Actually I was quoting relevant parts of our facebook messaging last night.  I was hoping to clear things up a bit here.

[KeenObserver]

It's like saying "Beetlejuice".

 

Say the name and a Principal Director of (employer removed - editor) appears!

[The Computer Audiophile]

57 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

And given that you said "most of us don't purchase 2L recordings", it seems this isn't likely to impact many, perhaps not any.

This actually means it effects everyone. We don't purchase the content, we stream it. 

[wdw]

23 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Actually I was quoting relevant parts of our facebook messaging last night.  I was hoping to clear things up a bit here.

 

Lee,

The salient point is that you were simply quoting from a form letter but implying, with the use of selective quoting, that you have the skinny on this one and can report from your position of a more significant relationship with the industry, a pose you are often inclined to affect.  

The primary concern with MQA is exposed very clearly with this debacle with 2L.  They are releasing MQA only in varying levels of resolution.  The fear is this will perminate the industry as a whole.  At that point the very real possibility of tiered access via DRM will have arrived but like so many frogs in the warming water we never truly noticed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

27 minutes ago, psjug said:

 

What's misleading about calling it 13-bit?

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/87435.html

 

Wow, there's a few good sentences in that thread:

 

"I personally don't get it. When CD was first introduced and everybody said it sounded horrible, the common assumption was that the problem was too few bits (resolution) and too low of a sampling rate. That's why HDCD was developed - to increase the resolution of a standard CD. (It turns out that it only increased it by 1 bit rather than the claimed 4 bits, but that's another story that can be read about at: https://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/18/184385.html

It's hard for me to fathom that 13 bits of resolution in the baseband is considered "high-resolution" by the Japanese majors: "Consumer audio products that came with the "Hi-Res AUDIO" logo indicate that the product meet the specification required for a high resolution audio product, as defined by Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA)." But there you go - Orwellian "newspeak" at its best."

[MikeyFresh]

54 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

As for better, the temporal improvements cover that.

 

More fake news Lee, you seem to be the only one who conveniently forgets this was long ago debunked.

[KeenObserver]

With regards to the quality of MQA:  It is telling that NO ONE would ever consider archiving their masters on MQA!

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This whole thing about releasing MQA because a label thinks it sounds better is strange. If this is true, then stop releasing MP3, pull your AAC files off iTunes, your OGG files off Spotify, and stop selling Lossless downloads. 

Of course. The sound quality argument has always been for the gullible audiophile.  MQA was from the very beginning about DRM, the management and restricting of the consumer...

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, psjug said:

What's misleading about calling it 13-bit?

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/87435.html

13 bits is an arbitrary figure used in some diagrams showing an example of how an MQA encoding might be done. All MQA files I've examined, including MQA-CD, have had 14 or 15 bits above the MQA data stream. The format itself allows having as little as 8 bits of PCM above the MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

13 bits is an arbitrary figure used in some diagrams showing an example of how an MQA encoding might be done. All MQA files I've examined, including MQA-CD, have had 14 or 15 bits above the MQA data stream. The format itself allows having as little as 8 bits of PCM above the MQA.

So MQA CD 8-15 may be correct. Ahhhhh.

[KeenObserver]

Seems like we are about to go through a whole new cycle of BS.

Has anyone noticed a whole slew of new posters with low post counts going on various web sites praising MQA?

[Lee Scoggins]

45 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

Lee,

The salient point is that you were simply quoting from a form letter but implying, with the use of selective quoting, that you have the skinny on this one and can report from your position of a more significant relationship with the industry, a pose you are often inclined to affect.  

The primary concern with MQA is exposed very clearly with this debacle with 2L.  They are releasing MQA only in varying levels of resolution.  The fear is this will perminate the industry as a whole.  At that point the very real possibility of tiered access via DRM will have arrived but like so many frogs in the warming water we never truly noticed.

 

I had not seen that form letter before today.  I only had a facebook conversation with Morten.  Perhaps he copied some of the content for convenience.