MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Currently, as I listen to a lot of classical, I stream mostly primephonic (no MQA content)

Are you aware of 2L's claims about only distributing MQA content to these services?

[Jud]

18 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

But I'm as skeptical of those who are certain that MQA degrades Redbook sound

 

Miska and mansr have provided good technical information that I would say bolsters the idea that MQA doesn't *improve* sound, and lets through ultrasonic distortion that might conceivably result in some degradation.  I believe @mansr at least may have said the differences between MQA and non-MQA might not be audible, but he can speak for himself.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Miska and mansr have provided good technical information that I would say bolsters the idea that MQA doesn't *improve* sound, and lets through ultrasonic distortion that might conceivably result in some degradation.  I believe @mansr at least may have said the differences between MQA and non-MQA might not be audible, but he can speak for himself.

 

I agree with this subjectively (and have said this on this thread and others).  MQA is a pretty transparent compressed codec, with only a hint of upper frequency digititus.   The market does not need yet another compressed codec (256kbit and > mp3/AAC works just fine) and in the lossy streaming space flac compressed 18/88.2_96 is the same size as MQA and is real hi res.

 

MQA was never about SQ however.  It begins and ends with DigitalRightsManagement:  The "management" of consumers and their "rights" through "digital" means (both technically via design, and legally).

[MikeyFresh]

41 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Isn't it conceivable that the guy just likes the way MQA sounds?

 

I guess so, but isn't it also conceivable that he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is nothing more than a shill? We've seen no evidence to the contrary.

 

41 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Crenca, I sense hates the magazines on general principles—

 

Perhaps, but what about me then? I've subscribed to TAS and Stereophile magazines for decades now. I live in NY, but I buy the U.K. pubs on the news stand at $11 a pop... HiFi+, HiFi Choice, HiFi World, HiFi News & Record Report. I'm not a hater of the magazines, though I have seen the content quality diminish greatly over the years.

 

41 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

some agitprop blog.

 

I'm pretty sure we have no idea which blog you are even referring to based on that characterization. Doesn't begin to ring a bell.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

Miska and mansr have provided good technical information that I would say bolsters the idea that MQA doesn't *improve* sound, and lets through ultrasonic distortion that might conceivably result in some degradation.  I believe @mansr at least may have said the differences between MQA and non-MQA might not be audible, but he can speak for himself.

The compression part of MQA is probably not audible in most cases. Where people hear a difference it is more likely due to whatever secret processing MQA does before the compression stage.

[MikeyFresh]

25 minutes ago, crenca said:

For example, it is true that Stereophile, TAS, and most of the rest of the "audiophile press" plug MQA "at every turn" and have done so for at least 3 years now - your spin is just that, spin.

 

TRUE ✔️

 

37 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

you'd think Stereophile and TAS are plugging MQA at every turn, when it actually comes up only episodically.

 

FALSE ❌

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Where people hear a difference it is more likely due to whatever secret processing MQA does before the compression stage.

 

For me this is an important point to remember.  I *have* heard MQA sound better, but it was with masters that were obviously different (for example, instruments in different locations).

[rickca]

56 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Don't call me a shill and I won't push the button

Remember what your 'leading elected official' said about his button?

[The Computer Audiophile]

If we take a step back and think about audiophiles for a minute, as a group we tend to accept anything that MAY POSSIBLY BY CHANCE ON EVERY OTHER TUESDAY improve sound quality. Thus improving our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. 

 

Most of us wanted MQA to be something in this category and we gave it all the chances we had left in our wallet to be this type of product. 

 

The audiophile world was willingly in the palm of MQA’s hand. All MQA had to do was be honest (and in some cases that isn’t even a requirement) or demonstrate something beyond “just believe us” or refute a single assertion made by technical authorities or simply not lead with the Lossless logo etc...

 

This community is very loyal. If MQA could’ve delivered on its promises it would’ve had thousands of people here pulling for it and doing our best to help it succeed. However we also don’t like when someone tries to pull the wool over our eyes and demean us.

 

It was MQA’s game to lose and it has done so spectacularly. 

[rickca]

Seems like the 2L MQA/Qobuz thing has sent out the bat signal to the MQA thought police.  All the usual suspects are showing up.

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are you aware of 2L's claims about only distributing MQA content to these services?

 

Just found out about it here within the past day or so. I haven't listened to any 2L material as yet via primephonic.

I  finished writing an article about primephonic a couple of weeks ago. I interviewed the CEO, Thomas Stephens, and my impression was that primephonic had no idea which files  were 24-bit and which were Redbook (they aren't identified one way or the other)—much less which have been MQA'd.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Why must every appearance of Lee Scoggins occasion insults and unsupported accusations regarding his motives, and even efforts to embarrass him at his work? Isn't it conceivable that the guy just likes the way MQA sounds? And, to read this forum, you'd think Stereophile and TAS are plugging MQA at every turn, when it actually comes up only episodically.

Lee does much more than simply say he likes the sound.

He defends MQA at every turn, avoids answering questions dealing with it's acknowledged technical issues, tells us how MQA is designed to be  "good for us" as consumers, tells us that MQA will save the recording industry from financial ruin, and insists that his personal sighted listening tests of MQA "prove" it's superiority.
I don't agree with the insults thrown his way or the work related comments, but even though I believe he is telling us his actual opinion, he comes off as a fanboy who is unable to objectively judge the issue, and as a committed defender/apologist for both MQA/Bob Stuart and the record labels.

 

As far as your other point, a few examples:
 

1. TAS (RH) called MQA a  revolutionary scientiific concept on the level of the discoveries of Copernicus...

2. Both magazines repeatedly called MQA lossless until audiophiles like some of those at this forum showed it to be lossy. Shouldn't the "professionals" at the magazines been able to figure that out? We are still told that MQA is superior to standard hi res  formats and that it is the equivalent of 4X and 8X high res formats. Because of our criticism, we now  hear MQA callled "perceptually lossless" which is a fake technical term made up by MQA Ltd, and is just marketing bunk. They have zero actual research behind their claim that it is "perceptually lossless"-it's just a marketing claim.

3. JVS recently wrote a column saying Qobuz streaming was inferior to Tidal MQA streaming b/c MQA streaming gave us streaming of DXD resolution, as opposed to Qobuz, which maxes out at a "mere" 24/192. Several posters commented pointing out to him that by definition, the actual resolution of MQA files maxes out at about 17/96, and that all that extremely high "resolution" is just upsampling performed as part of the "unfolding" and conversion to analog. Thus his negative comparison to Qobuz 24/192 streaming was false as a matter of fact. He refuses to acknowledge this fact and insists that MQA streaming is providing a  real DXD level of resolution.

4. Multiple reviews/show comments  in both magazines have referred to non MQA devices as obsolete; or implied that devices that aren't MQA ready are inferior.
 

I could go on endlessly with more similar examples from the past several years and up till today.

So it's not surprising that we react that way to the magazines. They may not plug MQA at every turn, but they haven't fully acknowledged many of the shortcomings or possible downsides and continue to pass off MQA marketing terminology (read: deceptive use of language) as "fact". The conclusion most of us draw from this unprofessional behavior is that there is some kind of fix or groupthink going on intended to push us into accepting MQA - both in HW and as a music file format. I don't think there is an actual conspiracy, but the behavior of the magaznes is the same as if there was one.

 

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

I *have* heard MQA sound better, but it was with masters that were obviously different (for example, instruments in different locations).

 

In my three 'MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison' threads, the MQA and hirez were from the same master in each case. In each of the three comparisons, there were people who preferred the sound of MQA over hirez, without knowing which was which beforehand. Some were shocked that they'd chosen the MQA over the hirez, having read (here and elsewhere) that it's lossy and therefore must sound audibly inferior to the hirez.

 

FWIW, I've pretty much given up on MQA. I actually tend to prefer the sound of redbook vs. the equivalent MQA on Tidal. And I lost interest in pursuing hirez a long time ago - redbook done well sounds more than fine to me.

 

Mani.

[KeenObserver]

I just logged on and have been reading the recent posts.

 

An interesting thought occurred to me.  Do you think that Goebbel's propaganda would have been as effective if there had been such a thing as the internet at that time?

 

 The internet is the great equalizer.  All sides get exposed.  The media does not have a lock on public opinion.

[KeenObserver]

And of course, there are members of the media that get upset when their formerly unquestioned writings get questioned.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

And of course, there are members of the media that get upset when their formerly unquestioned writings get questioned.

Yes, the old guard was living the dream publishing hand selected Letters to the Editor once a month.

[crenca]

33 minutes ago, firedog said:

3. JVS recently wrote a column saying Qobuz streaming was inferior to Tidal MQA streaming b/c MQA streaming gave us streaming of DXD resolution, as opposed to Qobuz, which maxes out at a "mere" 24/192. Several posters commented pointing out to him that by definition, the actual resolution of MQA files maxes out at about 17/96, and that all that extremely high "resolution" is just upsampling performed as part of the "unfolding" and conversion to analog.

 

 

Is not this claim also dubious? The 24-96khz data is "unfolded" from a compression scheme, no?  So MQA is really uncompressed only to 24, lossy from 24-96, and unsampled from there. 

[crenca]

47 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Just found out about it here within the past day or so. I haven't listened to any 2L material as yet via primephonic.

I  finished writing an article about primephonic a couple of weeks ago. I interviewed the CEO, Thomas Stephens, and my impression was that primephonic had no idea which files  were 24-bit and which were Redbook (they aren't identified one way or the other)—much less which have been MQA'd.

 

Very interesting ARQuint.  Now, you were interviewing the CEO who in all likelihood does not really understand what bit level or sampling rate means.  Behind the scenes he has (hopefully) a CTO and staff that does know the difference, how to verify what they actually are streaming, etc.

 

Here is some text from their homepage:

 

"Lossless 24bit FLAC streaming" (if you sign up for "Platinum")

 

and

 

"Our audio player streams music at the highest quality possible. If an album is available in 24-bit, that’s what you get. If your connection ever drops or slows down, we dynamically adapt the audio to make sure the music never stops..."

 

 

 

[Jud]

54 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I just logged on and have been reading the recent posts.

 

An interesting thought occurred to me.  Do you think that Goebbel's propaganda would have been as effective if there had been such a thing as the internet at that time?

 

 The internet is the great equalizer.  All sides get exposed.  The media does not have a lock on public opinion.

 

I see we’ve reached Godwin’s Law territory (or close enough).

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I see we’ve reached Godwin’s Law territory (or close enough).

 

How about "are commissars effective in the age of the internet"...that will get you back to the point of the post 😉

[christopher3393]

32 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

How about "are commissars effective in the age of the internet"...that will get you back to the point of the post 😉

 

 

commissar: 

• an official of the Communist Party, especially in the former Soviet Union or present-day China, responsible for political education and organization.
• a head of a government department in the former Soviet Union before 1946.a strict or prescriptive figure of authority"   
• a strict or prescriptive figure of authority

Nope.  

[mansr]

56 minutes ago, crenca said:

Very interesting ARQuint.  Now, you were interviewing the CEO who in all likelihood does not really understand what bit level or sampling rate means.  Behind the scenes he has (hopefully) a CTO and staff that does know the difference, how to verify what they actually are streaming, etc.

 

Here is some text from their homepage:

 

"Lossless 24bit FLAC streaming" (if you sign up for "Platinum")

 

and

 

"Our audio player streams music at the highest quality possible. If an album is available in 24-bit, that’s what you get. If your connection ever drops or slows down, we dynamically adapt the audio to make sure the music never stops..."

I believe they use the same OraStream technology as the Neil Young Archives.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If we take a step back and think about audiophiles for a minute, as a group we tend to accept anything that MAY POSSIBLY BY CHANCE ON EVERY OTHER TUESDAY improve sound quality. Thus improving our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. 

 

Most of us wanted MQA to be something in this category and we gave it all the chances we had left in our wallet to be this type of product. 

 

The audiophile world was willingly in the palm of MQA’s hand. All MQA had to do was be honest (and in some cases that isn’t even a requirement) or demonstrate something beyond “just believe us” or refute a single assertion made by technical authorities or simply not lead with the Lossless logo etc...

 

This community is very loyal. If MQA could’ve delivered on its promises it would’ve had thousands of people here pulling for it and doing our best to help it succeed. However we also don’t like when someone tries to pull the wool over our eyes and demean us.

 

It was MQA’s game to lose and it has done so spectacularly. 

 

It’s really emblematic of a music industry  attitude.  Apple had to drag the industry kicking and screaming from the Inquisition (treating all customers as potential thieves) into the future where people could pay reasonable prices for a convenient way to listen to the songs they liked, thus saving them from financial ruin.

 

Their immediate reaction was that they’d never let such a terrible thing happen again.

 

From the people who brought you $17 unpreviewable CDs with one good song, here’s MQA!

[phosphorein]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Very interesting ARQuint.  Now, you were interviewing the CEO who in all likelihood does not really understand what bit level or sampling rate means.  Behind the scenes he has (hopefully) a CTO and staff that does know the difference, how to verify what they actually are streaming, etc.

 

Here is some text from their homepage:

 

"Lossless 24bit FLAC streaming" (if you sign up for "Platinum")

 

and

 

"Our audio player streams music at the highest quality possible. If an album is available in 24-bit, that’s what you get. If your connection ever drops or slows down, we dynamically adapt the audio to make sure the music never stops..."

 

 

 

 

I examined some of the 24/96 streams from primephonic and they appeared to be normal 16/44 files, even though primephonic asserted that these were 24/96 recordings. I found primephonic's web player to be buggy and only a limited classical catalog. Qobuz is definitely a higher value service.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Is not this claim also dubious? The 24-96khz data is "unfolded" from a compression scheme, no?  So MQA is really uncompressed only to 24, lossy from 24-96, and unsampled from there. 

Yes It’s lossy and just upsampled above 96k, that was part of the point. It also isn’t actually 24 bit. It’s a max of about 17.