MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 hours ago, ECL said:

At the end of the day, there's absolutely NO WAY and NO CHANCE IN HELL that MQA is taking over anything, nor replacing anything superior to itself. ANY talk on this subject comes from people with their head where the sun don't shine and completely ignorant of how music/recording industry works. So, after we put that to bed,

 

This and your curious use of the word "partisan", which is commonly used by the MQA principals to describe skeptics/critics, makes me doubt the alleged purity of your intentions.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

This and your curious use of the word "partisan", which is commonly used by the MQA principals to describe skeptics/critics makes me doubt the alleged purity of your intentions.

 

A fair critique as well. 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I’m my experience the industry exists to make money. Public companies serve shareholder interests. Period. If MQA can help them make money, it’ll be the standard. Zero to do with anything else. 

 

Chris, how do you make money if you are record label? You license lossy codecs to streaming companies and satisfy 99% of the market, sell vinyl records and encourage the CD revival.  All these things will make the shareholders happy.

 

And since public companies are in the business of making money you don’t invite Bob Stuart or people associated with him to the table. They don’t have anything to offer. And risk making shareholders unhappy.

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, ECL said:

My comments about experts and expertise pertains to the fact that none of the discussions I ever see on the topic, whether pro- or anti-, have their head anywhere in clean air but mostly in a dark musty place where the sun doesn't shine, rank with propaganda, fearmongering, misinfo, on both sides. Where are calm people weighing the good and the bad with an even analysis? Few and far away, just like the ones who know what they're talking about.

 

Then clearly you've not read any meaningful portion of this admittedly large thread, nor followed along MQA's sordid saga since inception. There are numerous detailed technical analysis available here and elsewhere that both fully debunk MQA's marketing BS, and do so in a way that has never been rebutted or addressed in any way by anyone with credible evidence to the contrary.

 

All of the above analysis was presented in a perfectly calm and clean way, despite trolls like you who think the same old tired lousy game plan of shoot the messenger and make false claims about lack of decorum on the internet is effective in countering MQA's detractors. It is not effective at all, and once again stands out starkly here as another attempt to deflect and change the narrative. That very weak playbook has been revisited time and time again, this time by you.

 

Your accusations of dark musty places and propaganda/fear mongering/misinformation etc are unfounded, and of anything better describe the reactions of the MQA cadre at RMAF a few years ago than anything you'd see here.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, ECL said:

 

 

At the end of the day, there's absolutely NO WAY and NO CHANCE IN HELL that MQA is taking over anything, nor replacing anything superior to itself. ANY talk on this subject comes from people with their head where the sun don't shine and completely ignorant of how music/recording industry works. So, after we put that to bed,

 

1. You have an ALMOST-lossless codec,

2. > 99% of what's lost is what's claimed as inaudible, such that it's ALMOST fair to call it lossless.

3. This codec allows transport of Hi-Res at bandwidth usage similar to 16/44.

4. If used properly and not merely for marketing hype, it could potentially satisfy artists AND consumers about authenticity. To clarify, NOT that the end-user is hearing a Master on the same kit it was produced with "as it sounded to the production team", which is silly and preposterous.... But rather, that the end-user is hearing something compressed, decoded, and unfolded in such a way that it is 1) guaranteed to be reasonably faithful to a Master, at least in the source data, and 2) isn't some counterfeit unapproved kooky crap that who knows which platforms you can't trust, would serve that stuff up.

 

If one can't think of how that's potentially useful, one has one's panties way too tightly wadded.

 

As I alluded to before, I believe a lot of the controversy is deservedly due to mis-marketing and overhyping of claims, combined with poor PR and proprietary secrecy. This has created a partisan atmosphere where it seems that nearly 100% of people who are politically anti-MQA think it also sounds worse, and nearly 100% of people who are politically pro-MQA also think it sounds better. Whereas we all know that if this were a cleanly conducted discussion, those two things should be independent variables.

 

Hear are a few things you can’t explain away.

1.      Bob Stuart told me at the Los Angeles Audio Show MQA changed the sound.

2.      Mike Jbara the CEO of MQA Ltd. told me the goal of MQA Ltd was to control music distribution.

3.      There is no evidence there is a market for hi-resolution streaming after Apple and Amazon killed any incentive offer it since you can’t charge more for it.

4.      This thread was created to counter the audiophile press and their promotion of MQA. It was never intended to be fair.

[MikeyFresh]

7 hours ago, ECL said:

I see MQA as a good ALMOST-lossless codec for delivering HiFi audio over transport channels of limited bandwidth and/or where bandwidth usage incurs greater costs. Think here, bluetoothy-ish, mobile data while traveling, or traveling in places where you pay $20 but they cap you at such-and-so-many gigabytes until you have to pay more.

But why would that be useful to someone wishing to stream lossless tracks at home over their LAN or WLAN?

 

Why would I want to pay extra for an MQA enabled DAC, and an additional premium for TIDAL "Masters" or "HiFi" or whatever the heck they are now choosing to call it when I can just have actual lossless files for less with Qobuz or Deezer?

 

7 hours ago, ECL said:

Remember, the way to knowledge is research, inquiry, and deep reflexion, not judgment or parroting the first partisan who happened to skew your judgments!

 

I'll say it again, these are completely false accusations you make with a very broad stroke, and they confirm you've read no appreciable portion of this thread at all.

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

2. > 99% of what's lost is what's claimed as inaudible, such that it's ALMOST fair to call it lossless.

 

Either it's lossless or it's not, and MQA originally called it lossless even using a logo that said lossless when it was not. Then they said in interviews and in copy on their website that MQA was better than lossless! What a crock, how can anyone have any respect or trust anything they say at all? Why would you or anyone wish to support that nonsense in any way?

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

2) isn't some counterfeit unapproved kooky crap that who knows which platforms you can't trust, would serve that stuff up.

 

Veiled accusation there, which platforms are you referring to? Apple Music, Amazon Music, Qobuz, Deezer, which one(s)?

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

If one can't think of how that's potentially useful, one has one's panties way too tightly wadded.

 

I can't think of how that is useful, not in the context of all we know for some time now, and I don't wear panties, though it sounds like you might have real first hand knowledge/experience in having your panties in a bunch.

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

This has created a partisan atmosphere where it seems that nearly 100% of people who are politically anti-MQA think it also sounds worse, and nearly 100% of people who are politically pro-MQA also think it sounds better.

 

Wrong, many of us don't care at all what MQA sounds like, and are opposed on various other clearly stated levels. Further, the McGill study and others conclude that there's nothing to see there. Another old MQA talking point dredged up and made new again, the old "but doesn't it sound great" argument as of that's all anyone should be considering.

 

6 hours ago, ECL said:

Whereas we all know that if this were a cleanly conducted discussion, those two things should be independent variables.

 

It is a cleanly conducted discussion, and they are independent, as stated above many of us don't care at all about what MQA supposedly sounds like, and are opposed for various other very good reasons. Further, lossless on Qobuz sounds great, so I'm all set there, as are many others with lossless on Deezer, Amazon, or Apple Music... sounds great, streams glitch-free, and involves no middleware fees. 

[KeenObserver]

Interesting!

Two extensive postings promoting MQA with the same old BS MQA talking points, all the while insulting those that counter the BS talking points with logic and facts. This, after stating:

"I am here mostly for the classifieds so if I'm ever in danger of being banned for what I say, please just delete my post give me a warning."

Let's see. New poster hiding behind a VPN.

Do you think any one here would be surprised at the identity of this poster?

[Rt66indierock]

8 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Interesting!

Two extensive postings promoting MQA with the same old BS MQA talking points, all the while insulting those that counter the BS talking points with logic and facts. This, after stating:

"I am here mostly for the classifieds so if I'm ever in danger of being banned for what I say, please just delete my post give me a warning."

Let's see. New poster hiding behind a VPN.

Do you think any one here would be surprised at the identity of this poster?

 

I'm always up for a good shill hunt.

[KeenObserver]

Every point, counterpoint, and accusation seen here has been seen numerous times before.

Every claim made by MQA has been carefully scrutinized and analyzed in a methodical manner. MQA's response has been the repeating of the same BS claims and talking points, without offering any real proof of the claims. It is all smoke and mirrors.

There is nothing that MQA CLAIMS to do that cannot be done with openly available non proprietary products.

[KeenObserver]

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I'm always up for a good shill hunt.

Well.

To start with you could analyze the words used and how they are put together. See if the pattern matches previous postings here or elsewhere.

This person uses a VPN to cover his tracks, so he may have used a newly created email address to also cover his tracks. Email addresses are one way financial institution use to confirm someones identity.

The fact that someone went through this much effort while claiming that they were just here for the "classifieds" is a tell.

 

 I have my own suspicions, but I don't have any substantiation, so I will keep it to myself.

[garrardguy60]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:20 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I was hesitant to allow the posts to be published, because the goal is pretty clear. However, I error on the side of publishing, rather than be accused of withholding pro-MQA comments. Dumb I know.

 

Why do we care what the pro-MQA people think about whether you publish their comments or not?

 

This is precisely why the technique of ECL and the BS lobby works!

 

We are very kinda-sorta self aware, as in "Ho ho ho ECL, we see what you're doing here. You're luring us into a rhetorical trap. We see you. PAUSE. OK, now we'll jump into your trap and start debating this all over again."

 

Why do we always take the bait?

 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, ECL said:

1. You have an ALMOST-lossless codec,

2. > 99% of what's lost is what's claimed as inaudible, such that it's ALMOST fair to call it lossless.

3. This codec allows transport of Hi-Res at bandwidth usage similar to 16/44.

4. If used properly and not merely for marketing hype, it could potentially satisfy artists AND consumers about authenticity. To clarify, NOT that the end-user is hearing a Master on the same kit it was produced with "as it sounded to the production team", which is silly and preposterous.... But rather, that the end-user is hearing something compressed, decoded, and unfolded in such a way that it is 1) guaranteed to be reasonably faithful to a Master, at least in the source data, and 2) isn't some counterfeit unapproved kooky crap that who knows which platforms you can't trust, would serve that stuff up.

 

I'm going to in effect repeat some of what you've said here, but with a different emphasis.  I've posted the same thing previously, but the thread is obviously too large to pick out the slightly more technically oriented bits. The link Chris provided is great but a bit long; what I'll post here is quite short and easy to grasp (has to be if I grasp it 😉).

 

- Digital filtering: The filtering used with MQA by design doesn’t remove much if any ultrasonic content. This creates aliasing, imaging, and intermodulation distortion. It’s quite possibly at levels too low to hear, but then MQA isn’t advertised as “distorted, but not so badly you can really hear it.”

 

- Compression: These days compression of a file to make it smaller (we’re not talking about dynamic compression) is usually not needed, but if it is, the ubiquitous and lossless FLAC and ALAC work fine. The only reason for MQA to use its lossy compression scheme is to try to protect its intellectual property. (Since the compression is lossy, the original bitstream can’t be reconstructed from the compressed version.)

 

Because of these factors - filtering that allows ultrasonics and lossy compression - technically, an MQA processed file cannot produce sound as close to the original as one processed reasonably well in the “usual” way. Certainly one can prefer the MQA processed file, but it is always a little bit wrong, and always in the same way.

 

My first bullet covers your first two points; the second bullet covers the third point.  There are ways to accomplish what you've discussed in your first three points that are common, standard in the industry, and technically superior to MQA (those ways being standard digital filtering and lossless compression via FLAC or ALAC).

 

So let's come to your fourth point.  Are there technically superior means to accomplish the objective of assuring customers regarding the authenticity of a file? I don't know whether you're aware, but MQA substitutes its "authenticity" marker (the thing that makes the MQA indicator show up) for part of the signal, thus reducing the potential dynamic range of the music. (Ironically, this authenticity marker therefore helps assure that what you hear *cannot* technically be the authentic version of what was recorded in the studio.)  Again, it might not be audible, but this isn't marketed as "OK, we've mangled things a bit, but not so badly you can hear it." Is there another method of assuring authenticity that doesn't require altering the music signal?

Yes, there is.  You've surely heard about it in connection with cryptocurrency - it's called the blockchain.  It's a way of assuring mathematically that a digital file hasn't been altered. In fact Spotify incorporates blockchain from a company they acquired, Mediachain, though it's used on the contracting/artist/royalty side rather than the provenance side. So yeah, there's a technically superior way to accomplish your 4th point that's already well-recognized and used in the industry.

To summarize: All of MQA's proposed goals can be accomplished more effectively by existing, standard, popular, non-proprietary technology.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, garrardguy60 said:

 

Why do we care what the pro-MQA people think about whether you publish their comments or not?

 

This is precisely why the technique of ECL and the BS lobby works!

 

We are very kinda-sorta self aware, as in "Ho ho ho ECL, we see what you're doing here. You're luring us into a rhetorical trap. We see you. PAUSE. OK, now we'll jump into your trap and start debating this all over again."

 

Why do we always take the bait?

 

I care because people will see their comments deleted or hidden, screenshots them, post them on pro MQA groups, and discredit the work that has been done here. People may get the idea that I’m hiding the “real” benefits of MQA, when I’m not hiding anything. 

[KeenObserver]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I care because people will see their comments deleted or hidden, screenshots them, post them on pro MQA groups, and discredit the work that has been done here. People may get the idea that I’m hiding the “real” benefits of MQA, when I’m not hiding anything. 

 

Exactly!

Having an open discussion allows the truth to come out.

" Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free"

Unfortunately, it allows the shills to continually repeat their BS claims, and thus forcing us to refute them over and over.

But, I guess, that is the price we pay for trying to prevent them from foisting this scheme on us.

[KeenObserver]

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

 

It's getting tiresome, though.

[FredericV]

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

And, the cycle starts all over again.

 

Almost lossless, etc etc etc.

320kbps MP3 is also "almost lossless", since for most users and most content, 320kbps MP3 is "transparent almost all of the time".

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,72542.0.html

But "Almost lossless" and "transparent almost all of the time" is still lossy.

For MP3, there are examples where 320kbps would not be enough. Here is an album which I used in the past for my own entropy starvation / bitrate killer experiments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Lasts..._But_Nothing_Is_Lost

There's so much layering and effects going on in Shpongle's music, that lossy codecs can have a hard time.

[John Dyson]

45 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm going to in effect repeat some of what you've said here, but with a different emphasis.  I've posted the same thing previously, but the thread is obviously too large to pick out the slightly more technically oriented bits. The link Chris provided is great but a bit long; what I'll post here is quite short and easy to grasp (has to be if I grasp it 😉).

 

- Digital filtering: The filtering used with MQA by design doesn’t remove much if any ultrasonic content. This creates aliasing, imaging, and intermodulation distortion. It’s quite possibly at levels too low to hear, but then MQA isn’t advertised as “distorted, but not so badly you can really hear it.”

 

- Compression: These days compression of a file to make it smaller (we’re not talking about dynamic compression) is usually not needed, but if it is, the ubiquitous and lossless FLAC and ALAC work fine. The only reason for MQA to use its lossy compression scheme is to try to protect its intellectual property. (Since the compression is lossy, the original bitstream can’t be reconstructed from the compressed version.)

 

Because of these factors - filtering that allows ultrasonics and lossy compression - technically, an MQA processed file cannot produce sound as close to the original as one processed reasonably well in the “usual” way. Certainly one can prefer the MQA processed file, but it is always a little bit wrong, and always in the same way.

 

My first bullet covers your first two points; the second bullet covers the third point.  There are ways to accomplish what you've discussed in your first three points that are common, standard in the industry, and technically superior to MQA (those ways being standard digital filtering and lossless compression via FLAC or ALAC).

 

So let's come to your fourth point.  Are there technically superior means to accomplish the objective of assuring customers regarding the authenticity of a file? I don't know whether you're aware, but MQA substitutes its "authenticity" marker (the thing that makes the MQA indicator show up) for part of the signal, thus reducing the potential dynamic range of the music. (Ironically, this authenticity marker therefore helps assure that what you hear *cannot* technically be the authentic version of what was recorded in the studio.)  Again, it might not be audible, but this isn't marketed as "OK, we've mangled things a bit, but not so badly you can hear it." Is there another method of assuring authenticity that doesn't require altering the music signal?

Yes, there is.  You've surely heard about it in connection with cryptocurrency - it's called the blockchain.  It's a way of assuring mathematically that a digital file hasn't been altered. In fact Spotify incorporates blockchain from a company they acquired, Mediachain, though it's used on the contracting/artist/royalty side rather than the provenance side. So yeah, there's a technically superior way to accomplish your 4th point that's already well-recognized and used in the industry.

To summarize: All of MQA's proposed goals can be accomplished more effectively by existing, standard, popular, non-proprietary technology.

The so-called 'blockchain' audio data should be maintained from the studio mix as the artist intended, which is not likely...  The distribution principals can fool around with the recording signal, then subsequently do the 'authentication'...   Historically, there has been no true way to maintain signal integrity between the mix and the consumer distribution point.   Using a flawed process with a stealth/likely  in-between processing step totally discredits the MQA signal as being 'the real thing'.   It is probably very easy to get one of the musicians to superficially review the signal and agree that the recording 'sounds the same'  It is also possible to get one of the technologist/ 'authenticators' already mixed up with the industry to 'authenticate' something that isn't the same as the 'mix'.

 

As many of us know, there are 'stealthy' ways of damaging the signal while making it mostly okay.   MQA is one such ADDITIONAL mush up of the signal, and has no benefit to the consumer (except for golden ears who can hear 30kHz.)*   Whether or not most people can hear the distortion from MQA, it has no benefit other than technical obfuscation for nefariou$$$  IP control purposes.

 

* Given the processing method that I maintain is mostly ubiquitous in recordings distributed to consumers, there is not much signal at all above 30kHz, even if the recording is done with super wide band techniques.   Caveat:  my claim does not apply to boutique recordings at all.  Also, there are sometimes nasty noise sources in the >30kHz region.  I had been told by an industry person that sometimes HD recordings have >20kHz noise purposely added to seem to be 'HD'.

 

Just in my own limited viewpoint,  claims about 'sounds worse' isn't all that critical because recordings are already 'messed with'...   The continued screwing up the signal is not a good thing.   MQA is *just wrong* for the consumer, whether or not they can hear the difference.   There are other things about MQA that can limit freedom to fully acce$$ the recording.

 

Demand to keep things the way that they are, or better...  I advocate *BETTER*, not screwed up worse.

 

John

 

 

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Well.

To start with you could analyze the words used and how they are put together. See if the pattern matches previous postings here or elsewhere.

This person uses a VPN to cover his tracks, so he may have used a newly created email address to also cover his tracks. Email addresses are one way financial institution use to confirm someones identity.

The fact that someone went through this much effort while claiming that they were just here for the "classifieds" is a tell.

 

 I have my own suspicions, but I don't have any substantiation, so I will keep it to myself.

 

I'm hoping it is somebody from Sonical after I said we would welcome a challenge to MQA on your turf or Andy Schaub he was fun to play with.

[Archimago]

13 hours ago, ECL said:

At the end of the day, there's absolutely NO WAY and NO CHANCE IN HELL that MQA is taking over anything, nor replacing anything superior to itself. ANY talk on this subject comes from people with their head where the sun don't shine and completely ignorant of how music/recording industry works. So, after we put that to bed,

 

1. You have an ALMOST-lossless codec,

2. > 99% of what's lost is what's claimed as inaudible, such that it's ALMOST fair to call it lossless.

3. This codec allows transport of Hi-Res at bandwidth usage similar to 16/44.

4. If used properly and not merely for marketing hype, it could potentially satisfy artists AND consumers about authenticity. To clarify, NOT that the end-user is hearing a Master on the same kit it was produced with "as it sounded to the production team", which is silly and preposterous.... But rather, that the end-user is hearing something compressed, decoded, and unfolded in such a way that it is 1) guaranteed to be reasonably faithful to a Master, at least in the source data, and 2) isn't some counterfeit unapproved kooky crap that who knows which platforms you can't trust, would serve that stuff up.

 

 

I see that @Jud has already masterfully responded. Just wanted to add to item 3 above.

 

A supposedly "ALMOST-lossless codec" MQA stream still takes up 35-50% more bandwidth than a standard 16/44.1 stream (MQA encoding is less easily losslessly compressed than actual hi-res audio data). Is that "similar" bandwidth to 16/44.1? For a streaming site like TIDAL, that's quite a number of terabytes they have to send each year I bet. That's still a good amount of energy, and since MQA aims to be "green" these days with their virtue signaling, we have to seriously consider what is actually gained from that extra overhead.

 

What we can say is that the 35-50% overhead is basically used to encode LOSSY ULTRASONIC content. In this regard, just like it's not fully lossless, it's also not fully "Hi-Res".

 

If this was all, then maybe it wouldn't be too big of a deal. But MQA is worse than that. Because it needs to embed a control stream in the signal (which includes the "authenticity marker"), it typically will do it in the 16th bit (of 24 bits) of the audio data which means the sound in the audible frequencies will lose resolution (maximum 15-bit lossless resolution, plus they could be adding dithering on top but let's leave that for now).

 

This is obviously a terrible deal! They're trading away resolution in the frequencies we can hear for lossy ultrasonic stuff we can't (or at best barely hear).

 

What's even worse is MQA-CD where we just trade away the last bit of resolution for basically nothing because they can't even reconstruct the lossy ultrasonic stuff with any accuracy!

 

I think knowledgeable audiophiles feel strongly, and justifiably, disgusted by MQA because it plays on audiophile psychology dishonestly. This is why we have such long-running threads like this. As per the tags for this thread, it's a type of "fraud", a "scam" that entices audiophiles with big numbers by insisting it's capable of full resolution 384kHz for example (often even showing the sampling rate on the front panel of one's DAC), or markets to consumers that it's "exactly" like the Master (which it obviously isn't). It reveals the lack of knowledge of audiophile magazine writers (like Michael Fremer recently, or people like John Atkinson who should have known better). And ultimately, what it delivers to the audiophile listener is not a higher resolution signal, but arguably worse than just plain lossless 16/44.1 complete with poor-quality digital filter choices that I suspect literally were designed to allow ultrasonic leakage to perpetuate the fraud - "See... there's content above 100kHz! It's real 384kHz sampling!".

 

This kind of fraud strikes at the heart of what it means to be audiophiles so there's no way we can still honestly call ourselves hobbyists who strive for "high fidelity" audio if we just rolled over and allowed this to perpetuate! They started this fight by basically lying to audiophiles.

 

Ultimately, I hope the marketplace has decided the fate of MQA - and I hope this thread and those of us who have been vocal about MQA being a poor concept has pushed this necessary process along. Certainly those recent TIDAL quarterly numbers do not look encouraging for the future of MQA. I think this is a good omen demonstrating that listeners aren't going gangbusters over the sound quality, and those who want high fidelity streams are moving over to TIDAL competitors like Qobuz, Amazon Music, or Apple Music.

[Currawong]

17 hours ago, ECL said:

1. You have an ALMOST-lossless codec,

2. > 99% of what's lost is what's claimed as inaudible, such that it's ALMOST fair to call it lossless.

3. This codec allows transport of Hi-Res at bandwidth usage similar to 16/44.

4. If used properly and not merely for marketing hype, it could potentially satisfy artists AND consumers about authenticity. To clarify, NOT that the end-user is hearing a Master on the same kit it was produced with "as it sounded to the production team", which is silly and preposterous.... But rather, that the end-user is hearing something compressed, decoded, and unfolded in such a way that it is 1) guaranteed to be reasonably faithful to a Master, at least in the source data, and 2) isn't some counterfeit unapproved kooky crap that who knows which platforms you can't trust, would serve that stuff up.

 

1. A codec is either lossy or lossless. There isn't an "almost" involved. It's one or the other. It is being promoted as being able to contain high-res content in a manner that has shown to be either a: false (via analysis of high-res originals and their MQA versions) or b: impossible without the use of a 32 bit file (going by their own marketing materials).

2. Again, no "almost". Lossless and lossy have strict definitions. If the compression of the music removes data, it is lossy. Period.

3. No it does not. Compression of the MQA data has been shown to result in larger FLAC files, due to the MQA data part of the file not being music. What amounts to noise does not compress as well.  Then, MQA's claimed "high res" compression REQUIRES at least a 24-bit file (or even 32 bit), which results in much larger files.  What MQA have done is bait-and-switch, claiming one thing, then doing another.

4."Reasonably faithful to a Master" is not the Master. In other words, the end user is hearing something that is a fake master, with fake high-res content caused by aliasing as a result of leaky digital filters. That's totally opposite of faithful to anything, and a good description of "unapproved kooky crap" as most MQA material was batch-processed without any input from anyone who created the music in the first place.

 

The ONLY benefit of MQA is to make money off of flagrant lies and deception. There is ZERO in it for the end consumer.

 

 

[KeenObserver]

Hopefully this was the death rattle of a bad scheme being foisted on the music consumer.

[yahooboy]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, Allan F said:

 

It is known as the "Big Lie", often attributed to Joseph Goebbels, kept current by Donald Trump and his supporters in denying the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election.

Even bested by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov:

 

Deny, Deny, Deny

It wasn't us, they started.....

[ECL]

First, a troll is not by definition, "someone who disagrees with you."  I'd say a troll is someone who evades all the scientific discussion and just parrots misinformation as "It's already 100% established", then launches into ad hominem attacks or conspiracy theories. So here the real trolls are the ones who accused me of it.

 

Second, there is no way I can fight the flood of spurious misinformation above. Much of it has clearly not even researched the basic goals and principles of what MQA is and is trying to do. And is completely ignorant on the science of the flaws in digital recording that MQA rightly acknowledges and CLAIMS to be improving.

 

Third, I am not pro-MQA. I am pro-evolving past the heinous flaws in current digital recording/playback methodology and highly interested that MQA at least rightly lists off what those are. I am not inner circle to MQA nor the expensive equipment needed, to tell if those claims are correct, but certainly educated enough to peer review that all the critiques so far against MQA have failed to pass even the basics of scientific methodology, and are total amateur hour not even worthy of MS level let alone Ph.D. or post-graduate level.

 

I have given ample volumes of critique against MQA, especially in what I called mismarketing and proprietary secrecy which would hold back global cooperation and intelligentsia from collaborative consortia of bringing the legitimately superior goals of MQA further. To anyone over IQ 108, this should be clear enough to differentiate me from some paid bot who comes in just to troll and market MQA.

 

Fourth, the claim that MQA at a 16/44 or 48 is up to 50% more data is a blatant misinformational propaganda lie, far worse than any misrepresentation made by MQA itself. It's at roughly 1:1 or only micro higher, and significantly compressed for Hi-Res, which is what all audiophiles are more concerned about since Hi-Res brings significant magnification to the frequency bandwidth for the cutoff filtering, which CREATES LESS FALSE DIGITAL ARTIFACTS in the AUDIBLE frequencies.

 

Fifth, to claim that ALMOST LOSSLESS is the same as LOSSY is a disingenuous argument when the topic is about slight lossyness in INAUDIBLE frequencies in a format whose A-to-D was ALREADY extremely lossy in these frequencies due to microphone limitations. If we are lossy in inaudible areas that microphones can't even record, and we trade off SLIGHT lossyness in this "garbage data" for actual GAINS in the reconstruction of audible frequencies, then besides that being KUDOS FOR ABSOLUTE GENIUS, we can make some judgements about the kind of person who understates this as "ALMOST LOSSLESS." That person could've hyped it a lot more than merely saying ALMOST LOSSY. That person is using understatement and OVERVALUING the points against them in an extreme act of honesty and civility to propagate higher quality discussion. That person is a hero of honesty, civility, and understatement when calling it ALMOST LOSSLESS when they could have deservedly and easily given it a more deserving title like "LOSING NOTHING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR GAINING EXTRA FIDELITY." If anything, we need to re-educate people with a greater vocabulary than just LOSSY vs LOSSLESS. Let's make some new concepts such as GAINY. GAINY represents any format which RECOVERS losses made over an exisiting A-to-D-to-A paradigm, giving greater fidelity to the original A. FLAC has 0 GAINYNESS and as such, recovers NONE of the lossy damage which has been scientifically shown to occur in the current A-to-D-to-A sound reproduction paradigm. 

 

Now then, it is claimed that MQA is a GAINY format which recovers some of those losses and is therefore, when the rubber meets the road, actually LESS lossy than PCM/FLAC/etc. Obviously, an MQA enemy could propagandize this GAINYNESS by actually measuring it as LOSSY, by comparing it to the middle-stage D rather than original-stage A. But only if disingenuous and dishonest and deliberately ignoring the main thesis of MQA as invalid before even starting the troll attacks against it.

 

Sixth, the claim that we are at a place where bandwidth doesn't matter couldn't be further from the truth. YES, TRUE, we are at a place where you can actually pay LESS to get lossless Hi-Res from Amazon, than compressed ALMOST-LOSSY from Tidal. And I never claimed otherwise. I'm the honest one here who acknowledges pros and cons.

 

Seventh, a "partisan" in my book is someone whose pro- and con- list is 100% pros or 100% cons and is incapable of having an erudite productive dialogue. If we were to believe intelligence experts like Edward deBono, we'd classify the people who deliberately try to force data/information to 100% support a view as IDIOTS, people who weigh a list of PROS vs CONS as SMART, and people who use a list of PROS and CONS to generate a third category called INTERESTING, and use the three categories to generate intellectual PROGRESS, as geniuses. I started out with P and C to a group of only C, and hinted at how we can discuss I, and all I got was more C.

 

At the end of the day, the elephant in the room is this, and NO ONE here is talking about it so hasn't even passed level 1 out of 10 in due diligence:

As Bob Stuart CORRECTLY says, all the recording engineers in studio COMPLAIN that the A-to-D-to-A PERFORM-RECORD-PLAYBACK tests right in the studio show that what goes in IS NOT WHAT COMES OUT. Compared right next to analogue in the same studio, the analogue is still performing better in SOME metrics over digital. Unlike poop-throwing chimps, I applaud him in giving a calm, clear, thorough, and civil explanation of the hypotheses for why this is the case, based on our current scientific understanding of all the known phenomena from multi-disciplinary fields coming together. I applaud anyone seeking to TACKLE these issues rather than stick their head in the sand and proclaim current digital formats as be-all-end-all. Heroes raise the bar, fundamentalist dogmatists fight advancement. What we know so far is that in studio A-to-D-to-A A/B testing, significant improvements WERE made in these issues.

 

My concerns are that there is no openness to what's going on, and how much of the advancements made there are really and truly getting to END USERS from a dual-corporate-monopoly that has currently exhibited no remorse in wildly exaggerative mismarketing and not delivering truthfully on its claims. But I don't care about that as much as making sure a bunch of nazis don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. WHERE ARE ALL THE OPEN-SOURCERS trying to make an OPEN STANDARD to do what MQA is trying to do? Nowhere, just chimps throwing poop and sticking their head in the sand and claiming PCM/FLAC is the be-all-end-all highest summit humanity will ever reach in recording and playback. DISGUSTING.   

 

What people familiar with these topics should be legitimately concerned about is:

1. HOW WELL does it MQA achieve its stated goals? Surely it can do better.

2. IF it can do better, WHO IS EVOLVING THAT improvement?

3. WILL PROPRIETARY SECRECY handicap the rest of the industry from taking these concepts to further levels of perfection?

4. Will the mismarketing and exposure of false claims permanently damage the LEGITIMATE goals MQA has correctly listed, as what is holding digital media back from higher levels of fidelity?

 

My prediction is that none of the trolls here will address any of that, and will default back to their PCM/FLAC is the be-all-end-all which needs none of the improvements that Bob Stuart listed, in spite of the fact that those are now scientifically established flaws in the current world of digital formats.

 

Cheers and Peace.

 

[WAM]

33 minutes ago, ECL said:

Fifth, to claim that ALMOST LOSSLESS is the same as LOSSY is a disingenuous argument

 

Euhh.. I do not follow you.. Like a wise man said to a woman: "you are pregnant are you are not pregnant, you are not a little bit pregnant" .  

[The Computer Audiophile]

50 minutes ago, ECL said:

At the end of the day, the elephant in the room is this, and NO ONE here is talking about it so hasn't even passed level 1 out of 10 in due diligence:

As Bob Stuart CORRECTLY says, all the recording engineers in studio COMPLAIN that the A-to-D-to-A PERFORM-RECORD-PLAYBACK tests right in the studio show that what goes in IS NOT WHAT COMES OUT. Compared right next to analogue in the same studio, the analogue is still performing better in SOME metrics over digital. Unlike poop-throwing chimps, I applaud him in giving a calm, clear, thorough, and civil explanation of the hypotheses for why this is the case, based on our current scientific understanding of all the known phenomena from multi-disciplinary fields coming together

That’s quite a rich post and I only have a minute to address a small piece. 
 

Im willing to bet any of the experts in this thread would respond to and single argument you have, but telling them to move monkeys, isn’t going to help anyone. 
 

You applaud Bob for stating what everyone on earth knows and has stated for years? Strange. 
 

He used the hearing of owls in his analysis. We aren’t owls. 
 

You seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for all the technical BS from BS. MQA says it improves items that it actually hurts. It has been shown objectively many times.