MQA is Vaporware

[ARQuint]

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..."

 

 

 

Here's something that I believe crenca and I can agree on, that being the need for transparency with streaming services.

 

Before I spoke with the primephonic CEO, I'd lived with the platform for several weeks, read everything on the website, and corresponded with the public relations person several times. She asked that I send a list of my questions for Thomas Steffens (misspelled it previously), which I was happy to do. These included a specific question about how consumers could identify HD content, information that wasn't displayed as it is with Tidal. I could only make that determination by watching the screen on my DAC's front panel as the music played. Despite presenting the issue ahead of time, neither the PR person or the CEO could give me any sense of how many of the one million files were 16-bit and how many were 24-bit. And I'm not surprised. This isn't a large operation (and most of the employees aren't technically oriented, as opposed to music or marketing oriented) and I'm guessing large numbers of files come to them from labels that are then channeled into the library without close examination. I assume this is how Quboz ended up surprised that they were streaming MQA.

 

If 2L wants to provide MQA-encoded files because they feel they are suitable sonically, that's their right. But everyone should know what he or she is streaming, in terms of both bit rate and MQA status.

 

 

[ARQuint]

56 minutes ago, phosphorein said:

 

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.

 

What browser are you using? Chrome works a lot better with the primephonic platform than Firefox.

[randyhat]

8 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

If 2L wants to provide MQA-encoded files because they feel they are suitable sonically, that's their right. But everyone should know what he or she is streaming, in terms of both bit rate and MQA status.

Agree....and judge it solely on how it sounds, not what it is.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, randyhat said:

Agree....and judge it solely on how it sounds, not what it is.

I wouldn't do that, but you're welcome to. You wouldn't judge a mate based solely on how s/he looks.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

If 2L wants to provide MQA-encoded files because they feel they are suitable sonically, that's their right. But everyone should know what he or she is streaming, in terms of both bit rate and MQA status.

There's more to it than that. With real PCM, regardless of the received resolution, anyone can play it back fully without needing to license additional decoders. MQA takes away this ability. Sure, the Tidal desktop app includes a decoder, but many embedded clients do not. MQA adds cost and limits choice, all for an inferior product.

[randyhat]

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I wouldn't do that, but you're welcome to. You wouldn't judge a mate based solely on how s/he looks.

 

How else do you evaluate a sound system other than by how it sounds?

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, randyhat said:

 

 

 

 

How else do you evaluate a sound system other than by how it sounds?

There are many things that go into it. Build quality, resale value, company history, value for the money, aesthetics, support / repair infrastructure, etc...

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, randyhat said:

How else do you evaluate a sound system other than by how it sounds?

By its price tag, obviously. Same as for women. 😁

[KeenObserver]

Standing.

 

A number of writers, editors. and publishers are given standing to comment on matters given their experience or influence on readers.  As such they are open to examination.  If an editor endorses MQA, then it should be open to examine their past endorsements.  If such editor previously recommended green markers for cd's, and in fact endorsed one such product, that should be known.  Full disclosure.

[mav52]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

By its price tag, obviously. . 😁

And someones its by the price of their ego. 😀

[Ralf11]

what if the woman has a melodious voice?  does that count?

 

 

[phosphorein]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

What browser are you using? Chrome works a lot better with the primephonic platform than Firefox.

 

I tried both Safari and Chrome, but did not notice and difference. One annoyance was five repeated clicks during the transition between tracks.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

what if the woman has a melodious voice?  does that count?

Only if it's flat to 20 kHz.

[KeenObserver]

Cui Bono

 

Chris set up a seminar that would examine MQA in a neutral, honest fashion.  That would benefit everyone.  Everyone, except perhaps MQA.  Chris was beset by MQA advocates in a less than neutral manner.

Mike Jbara is the CEO of MQA.  As such he can be expected to be less than neutral.  His company stands to make significant financial gain from the adoption of MQA.  Jbara's previous employment with Warner MAY lead one to speculate on who else would benefit.  Jbara's previous employment with Andersen Consulting MAY lead one to speculate how MQA would promote itself.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, randyhat said:

How else do you evaluate a sound system other than by how it sounds?

 

You can use sound, measurements, or both.  Some things listening may be better for (the ear/brain is great at matching patterns, so if you go to a lot of concerts, maybe there's something in a violin or piano sounding "right" to you).  Some things measurement is better for (e.g., relatively low levels of jitter, IMD, etc., that you might be able to hear and might not).  So I make use of both if I have pertinent measurements.

[crenca]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

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.

 

Yes, but is happening below 96k?  If I am not mistaken, all data between 48 to 96 is compressed in the proprietary "folding" algorithm".  My point is that we have become accustomed to saying something like "MQA is on real hi res up to 96 - it's just upsampling after that", but that is not quite right, because it's only "hi res" up to 48 - 48 to 96 is compressed.  On top of this, as you say because of the variable bit rate (a consequence of the folding process), it is at best 17 bit...does this qualify it as "hi res".

 

This is essentially Qobuz's problem.  Are they going to accept MQA as "hi res"?

[crenca]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 I'm not surprised. This isn't a large operation (and most of the employees aren't technically oriented, as opposed to music or marketing oriented) and I'm guessing large numbers of files come to them from labels that are then channeled into the library without close examination. I assume this is how Quboz ended up surprised that they were streaming MQA.

 

If 2L wants to provide MQA-encoded files because they feel they are suitable sonically, that's their right. But everyone should know what he or she is streaming, in terms of both bit rate and MQA status.

 

 

 

Yep, and why should they have to "closely examine" what is being delivered to them?  This is one aspect of MQA that a functional "audiophile press" would write about if we had a functional audiophile press:  How is it that Bob S and MQA have been allowed to stress the normal trust relationships and inner workings of the industry with a product that actually does not deliver on any of its substantial promises/deliverables?   Why are not more industry insiders/companies talking about this?  

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Standing.

 

A number of writers, editors. and publishers are given standing to comment on matters given their experience or influence on readers.  As such they are open to examination.  If an editor endorses MQA, then it should be open to examine their past endorsements.  If such editor previously recommended green markers for cd's, and in fact endorsed one such product, that should be known.  Full disclosure.

 

I wouldn’t have it any other way. Anything less is a disservice to everyone. 

[Lee Scoggins]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

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.

 

 

Firedog, 

 

I think you have some of the more rational comments here so I will make a few responses in the hope of clarifying my view:

 

1. I do hear some sonic improvement from MQA and I have heard it across different tracks and different systems.  The tracks I hear the improvement on most are those with acoustic instruments in small to medium sized ensembles.

 

2. I have defended the business model because I have seen the value of "data ecosystems" and as someone who has worked on recording session with musicians, I see it as a possible path to getting folks to pay more for premium music which in turn could lead to more revenue for the artist.  I am historically not a fan of record labels or how they have been managed.  That view is well documented on the Steve Hoffman forum.

 

3.  We may disagree with the sound quality of MQA but I think many, because of that, will dismiss their business model out of hand.  I think the intellectually curious will at least give credit to Stuart for what he is attempting to do in terms of aligning incentives for the participants in the ecosystem.

 

4. I personally don't believe MQA is superior sonically to hires formats...each has its own advantages.  It does offer some bandwidth advantages.  It's certainly not "4X and 8X" hirez formats.  I think there is value in the apodizing aspects though.

 

5.  I don't believe non-MQA DACs are obsolete.  The Benchmark DAC3 was in for review last summer and it sounded really excellent and several pro engineers I know are a fan of its performance.  In house here, I own several DACs, only one is MQA which is the network bridge II card in my PS Audio dac.  I do have a Mytek Brooklyn+ in for review and it does MQA in the upstairs system.  Having a dac with MQA decoding gives you more options for playback but it's not needed.  I have often recommended the sound of the Yggdrasil and the Schiit folks don't like MQA to put it kindly. 

 

So I hope that clarifies my view a bit for you and others.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Cui Bono

 

Chris set up a seminar that would examine MQA in a neutral, honest fashion.  That would benefit everyone.  Everyone, except perhaps MQA.  Chris was beset by MQA advocates in a less than neutral manner.

Mike Jbara is the CEO of MQA.  As such he can be expected to be less than neutral.  His company stands to make significant financial gain from the adoption of MQA.  Jbara's previous employment with Warner MAY lead one to speculate on who else would benefit.  Jbara's previous employment with Andersen Consulting MAY lead one to speculate how MQA would promote itself.

 

Anderson was far back in Mike's resume (before 1996).  I really doubt it has anything at all to do with the MQA business model.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Having a dac with MQA decoding gives you more options for playback

 

It can actually do the opposite if the DAC forces MQA filters on non-MQA material. 

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

It can actually do the opposite if the DAC forces MQA filters on non-MQA material. 

 

Yep, that could happen.

[Jud]

45 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I think there is value in the apodizing aspects though.

 

@Miska or @mansr: As leaky as the MQA filters are, I wouldn’t think of them as apodizing. Are they?

 

Would the fact the filters are so short have some effect similar to an apodizing filter?

[firedog]

48 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Firedog, 

 

I think you have some of the more rational comments here so I will make a few responses in the hope of clarifying my view:

 

1. I do hear some sonic improvement from MQA and I have heard it across different tracks and different systems.  The tracks I hear the improvement on most are those with acoustic instruments in small to medium sized ensembles.

 

2. I have defended the business model because I have seen the value of "data ecosystems" and as someone who has worked on recording session with musicians, I see it as a possible path to getting folks to pay more for premium music which in turn could lead to more revenue for the artist.  I am historically not a fan of record labels or how they have been managed.  That view is well documented on the Steve Hoffman forum.

 

3.  We may disagree with the sound quality of MQA but I think many, because of that, will dismiss their business model out of hand.  I think the intellectually curious will at least give credit to Stuart for what he is attempting to do in terms of aligning incentives for the participants in the ecosystem.

 

4. I personally don't believe MQA is superior sonically to hires formats...each has its own advantages.  It does offer some bandwidth advantages.  It's certainly not "4X and 8X" hirez formats.  I think there is value in the apodizing aspects though.

 

5.  I don't believe non-MQA DACs are obsolete.  The Benchmark DAC3 was in for review last summer and it sounded really excellent and several pro engineers I know are a fan of its performance.  In house here, I own several DACs, only one is MQA which is the network bridge II card in my PS Audio dac.  I do have a Mytek Brooklyn+ in for review and it does MQA in the upstairs system.  Having a dac with MQA decoding gives you more options for playback but it's not needed.  I have often recommended the sound of the Yggdrasil and the Schiit folks don't like MQA to put it kindly. 

 

So I hope that clarifies my view a bit for you and others.

 

Thanks for your response. I hope you realize not all of my comments about what has been written in “the magazines” was aimed at you. We can agree to disagree on some of the points. 

I have one comment about your post. I’m sure the Brooklyn+ is a fine DAC. But like most other MQA DACs, it’s setup so that once it starts playing PCM in MQA mode, it continues playing back all forms of PCM with the MQA filters. It must be manually reset to go back to using non MQA filters. This is not clearly explained to consumers.
 

So most who use it to compare MQA with non MQA are hearing a false comparison that is slanted in favor of MQA. This is just another example of all the little tricks and deceptions that MQA has been marketed with,  whether intentional or not. 

[firedog]

6 hours ago, randyhat said:

Agree....and judge it solely on how it sounds, not what it is.

Not quite. Let’s say I think MQA sometimes results in a small improvement in SQ over Redbook. I then have to judge the worth of that small improvement over the non sonic costs involved with the adoption of MQA on a wide scale, and the possible sonic costs  resulting from the danger of the disappearance of non MQA hi res from the market as a result.

 

Let’s face it: if MQA was truly the great sonic revolution that has been claimed, most of us would be ecstatic about that and would be willing to put up with the negative aspects. Think how much of our privacy and personal inormation we willingly give up for the convenience of modern technology. The parallel is there. (As is the parallel to  the deceptive practices the tech industry engages in to capture and exploit our information without informing us and giving us the ability to make informed decisions about it).