MQA is Vaporware

[John Dyson]

44 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With all due respect, the number of keystrokes you have dropped in this thread in the last 2-3 days makes this something like a bald-faced lie.

 

You're using the standard MQA playbook: dehumanize the most outspoken critics and try to convince the rest they're not giving MQA a fair chance because they've been corrupted by The Partisans.

 

And just how obsequious can you be toward Bob Stuart and still have any dignity left?  Unless you ARE Bob Stuart?

 

 

I tend to agree, but have my own reasons for disliking the postings containing too much propaganda-motivated techno-babble...   There are a few of us who are trying to do something that is truly technically difficult and incredibly complex.   How can someone discern between total techno-babble and mistakes when trying to describe something actually 'semi-new'?   There are individuals who *really do* know what they are talking about, each of us myself included, sometimes  have something to learn.  We are all diminished when someone publically spouts technical nonsense, how can a naive person reliably discern the truth?     (I HAVE mistakenly or erroneously spouted some nonsense, but mostly for the purpose of a quest, not as a goal to pontificate or propagandize.)

 

On the other hand, discussions initially started as asking for help can benefit us all, as long as no-one represents their expertise as greater than it really is.   Typically, when making a strong technical statement, it seems like a good thing to open the discussion up to dissent.   None of us is always 100% accurate.

 

In a way, there is likely some benefit when the MQA discussion is renewed and brought up to date.  It might be good to re-enforce the notion that the MQA nonsense still lurks as a generally  anti-audiophile entity.   Continued awareness and vigilance is a good thing, even if it can be very, very frustrating to those good people who help to protect the rest of us.

 

Thanks to those who have the knowledge and energy to represent reasonable & wise resistance to MQA.

It is regrettable whenever there is a loss of kindness & respect, but maybe not always deserved.

 

John

 

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

We are all diminished when someone publicly spouts technical nonsense.

 

Ain't that the truth!

[firedog]

The bottom line is that no one has demonstrated any actual benefit from MQA, and there are a few clear disadvantages: 

 

Sound-wise: there is no consensus that it sounds better, worse, pretty much the same or "all of the above" depending on the specific recording. If it was actually fairly consistently better, the vast majority of listeners would definitely hear it and prefer it. That hasn't happened. So what is it for?

 

File size for streaming: So 2010. I think it's mostly irrelevant these days. But even if you listen exclusively with your phone over a metered data source, it isn't needed: files could be streamed in dithered 18/96 flac, which is no larger than an MQA file, and while slightly lossy (like MQA), it seems to make little perceptual difference to the end listener. No need for a proprietary format, encoder, decoder, and special hardware to get there. 

 

Authenticity: why listen to a proprietary batch reprocessed version of the master, when you can listen to the master? And who's authenticating? Certainly not the artist in many cases. Possibly just some low level record label flunky. And see the first point above....

 

Economics: it just makes listening to music more expensive: Tidal Masters is a premium tier. Manufacturers pay fees to MQA for certification, and those fees are passed on to the consumer. This has been clearly demonstrated by manufacturers who make HW that is identical except for one version having MQA certification, and that model costs about $100 more that the otherwise identical non-MQA version. It could be a larger add-on on some more expensive electronics.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Sound-wise: there is no consensus that it sounds better, worse, pretty much the same or "all of the above" depending on the specific recording.

 

Since on a technical level it cannot be truer to the original than well done non-proprietary digital (as noted in previous posts, due to lossy compression and leaky digital filters), there would be two possibilities for preferring a given MQA recording to a non-MQA recording:

 

(1) The leaky filters are sufficiently audible to make the MQA recording sound more "warm," "hot," "exciting" - pick your adjective. When I think of this I'm always put in mind of the use on Springsteen's Born To Run of the Aphex Aural Exciter, the frank use of distortion to achieve a certain kind of "rock and roll" sound.  But this sort of one-trick pony, where the sound always has a certain sameness, inevitably palls eventually.

 

(2) The individual mastering is better with the MQA recording than the non-MQA recording. This makes me regret special care in mastering being in effect wasted for a version that (see above) must technically be less true to the original than a well done non-MQA version would have been.

[jamesg11]

Question - is MQS, as used by Blue Note in their 75th Anniv release of Wayne Shorter albums, the same as MQA? Or …?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, jamesg11 said:

Question - is MQS, as used by Blue Note in their 75th Anniv release of Wayne Shorter albums, the same as MQA? Or …?

MQS is an Astell&Kern thing. Very different from MQA. 

[bambadoo]

Perhaps it actually provide any benefits.  If so it is very different 

[Currawong]

19 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I tend to agree, but have my own reasons for disliking the postings containing too much propaganda-motivated techno-babble...   There are a few of us who are trying to do something that is truly technically difficult and incredibly complex.   How can someone discern between total techno-babble and mistakes when trying to describe something actually 'semi-new'?   There are individuals who *really do* know what they are talking about, each of us myself included, sometimes  have something to learn.  We are all diminished when someone publically spouts technical nonsense, how can a naive person reliably discern the truth?     (I HAVE mistakenly or erroneously spouted some nonsense, but mostly for the purpose of a quest, not as a goal to pontificate or propagandize.)

 

On the other hand, discussions initially started as asking for help can benefit us all, as long as no-one represents their expertise as greater than it really is.   Typically, when making a strong technical statement, it seems like a good thing to open the discussion up to dissent.   None of us is always 100% accurate.

 

In a way, there is likely some benefit when the MQA discussion is renewed and brought up to date.  It might be good to re-enforce the notion that the MQA nonsense still lurks as a generally  anti-audiophile entity.   Continued awareness and vigilance is a good thing, even if it can be very, very frustrating to those good people who help to protect the rest of us.

 

Thanks to those who have the knowledge and energy to represent reasonable & wise resistance to MQA.

It is regrettable whenever there is a loss of kindness & respect, but maybe not always deserved.

 

John

 

Something that came to mind is, people who tend to fall for technobabble (and conspiracy theories) tend to believe that everyone else is as ignorant as they are. They can't handle coherent and truthful responses, so they have to resort to abuse, as demonising the source is the only way out of their logical hole.

 

The problem then is, if you fall into the trap of giving into frustration with them and calling them for the type of people they are, then you give them justification for their own, abusive behaviour. "Judge not, lest you yourself be judged" has quick karmic consequences online. 

[garrardguy60]

On 3/3/2023 at 1:07 PM, 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. 

 

Do the pro-MQA people give Audiophile Style credit for this?

 

Do the pro-MQA people moderate their tone because you're welcoming to them and happy to engage in rational debate?

 

Do the pro-MQA people promise to not pull the football away again and then. . . pull the football away again?

 

Have the pro-MQA people stopped incentivizing trolls and anonymous posting by the usual suspects and their fellow travelers?

 

Have the pro-MQA people showed ANYTHING in the 1022 pages of this thread that indicate they have ANY plans to "grow up"? Well, why should they when they are getting attention, oxygen, which is what they need to survive another day.

[DuckToller]

5 minutes ago, garrardguy60 said:

 

Do the pro-MQA people give Audiophile Style credit for this?

 

Do the pro-MQA people moderate their tone because you're welcoming to them and happy to engage in rational debate?

 

Do the pro-MQA people promise to not pull the football away again and then. . . pull the football away again?

 

Have the pro-MQA people stopped incentivizing trolls and anonymous posting by the usual suspects and their fellow travelers?

 

Have the pro-MQA people showed ANYTHING in the 1022 pages of this thread that indicate they have ANY plans to "grow up"? Well, why should they when they are getting attention, oxygen, which is what they need to survive another day.

I often share this thought of unsymmetric distribution of proper behaviour, but then I think about gents like Peter Veth feeling SO SAD that they can't share their heroic explorations towards AS in their private MQA facebook group because it would openly denude their psycho warfare strategies against objective and substantial reflections on MQA.
Be kind, rewind ...

[Racerxnet]

1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

I often share this thought of unsymmetric distribution of proper behaviour, but then I think about gents like Peter Veth feeling SO SAD that they can't share their heroic explorations towards AS in their private MQA facebook group because it would openly denude their psycho warfare strategies against objective and substantial reflections on MQA.
Be kind, rewind ...

The MQA gang feel as though they are the truth ministry. Much like the leaders prior to Elons take over of twitter. You can read the internal comms between the politicians , gov, and Yoel. Eventually the cover gets pulled back completely and the whole shebang collapses. They are now at the edge of failure. Glad to see them go. People are tired of the propaganda. 

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

The MQA gang feel as though they are the truth ministry. Much like the leaders prior to Elons take over of twitter. You can read the internal comms between the politicians , gov, and Yoel. Eventually the cover gets pulled back completely and the whole shebang collapses. They are now at the edge of failure. Glad to see them go. People are tired of the propaganda. 

 

They are playing victim while all the while actually being the bully, and then whine that people are mean to them. 

[loop7]

This question had to have been asked and answered but I'm curious if the number of MQA capable DACs has increased or decreased since MQA was introduced?

 

Has there been an arc?

[Currawong]

On 3/7/2023 at 4:08 PM, loop7 said:

This question had to have been asked and answered but I'm curious if the number of MQA capable DACs has increased or decreased since MQA was introduced?

 

Has there been an arc?

I haven't heard of any manufacturers removing it. By the nature of there being new models introduced, almost every new DAP and DAC I've seen come out of China has been MQA capable, so they have been steadily increasing. 

[MikeyFresh]

There is now another Topping model besides the D90 that is available with and without MQA.

 

The new DX5 Lite lacks MQA and retails for $349, while the original DX5 has MQA decoding and is $449. 

 

Topping therefore recognizes that many people do not want MQA/won't pay $100 extra for it. I think this also clearly illustrates that Topping's design engineers do not regard MQA as some sort of superior must have technology, if they did it would be adopted on most/all of their model lineup by now. 

 

Rather, MQA is likely a feature tick box pushed for by Topping's marketing, or business development groups, and not their technical design staff.

 

Still annoying that in this newer model, unlike with the D90LE/SE designation, they've chosen this "Lite" moniker which to me has a negative connotation, to suggest to a buying customer that this version is missing something or not the full monty version.

[bambadoo]

I have hears (from pretty reliable sources) that Topping do not like MQA at all but implement it because customers demand it. 

Thats why we are given a choice

[FredericV]

6 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

There is now another Topping model besides the D90 that is available with and without MQA.

I bought the D90LE some months ago.

I already paid the tax in the past on a Mytek, which I used for research.
 

6 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

The new DX5 Lite lacks MQA and retails for $349, while the original DX5 has MQA decoding and is $449. 

On the D90SE vs LE the difference is 200 euros. On the DX5 Lite it is only 100 euro.

Is the MQA functionality a fixed fee for the manufacturer and the manufacturer can set it's own price for the added MQA decoder, or does it scale with the price point?

 

6 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

Topping therefore recognizes that many people do not want MQA/won't pay $100 extra for it. I think this also clearly illustrates that Topping's design engineers do not regard MQA as some sort of superior must have technology, if they did it would be adopted on most/all of their model lineup by now. 

If MQA was such a superior technology, there would also be more MQA ADC's. Only Mytek has an MQA ADC (just google MQA ADC).  No other studio gear vendor has adopted MQA. There are no VST studio tools publicly marketed.

The whole end-to-end claim is just marketing BS.

Outstanding questions for MQA:

1. why is there only one MQA ADC?
2. why are there no MQA VST tools for studio's (zero marketing or product pages about MQA studio tools)?

 

6 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

Rather, MQA is likely a feature tick box pushed for by Topping's marketing, or business development groups, and not their technical design staff.

Usually the tech guy does not believe in it, but management wants the feature to be added. This is the actual story of one of the first MQA adopters.
 

6 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

Still annoying that in this newer model, unlike with the D90LE/SE designation, they've chosen this "Lite" moniker which to me has a negative connotation, to suggest to a buying customer that this version is missing something or not the full monty version.

The SE measurements are as good as the LE when not using MQA. Actually it has one of the highest SINAD measurements ever. I did buy it for this reason, for research.

But being the king of SINAD is not everything: compared to my old Sonnet Morpheus it was already better sounding after one day, but I removed the cheap switchmode PSU, and replaced it with a DC inlet and an external SBooster - the same model I also use for my Tascam mixer.

The difference in sound is day and night.

Time domain details have been greatly improved by this mod. No need for MQA.

[Currawong]

On 3/9/2023 at 3:18 PM, bambadoo said:

I have hears (from pretty reliable sources) that Topping do not like MQA at all but implement it because customers demand it. 

Thats why we are given a choice

That's the case with a number of Asian manufacturers.  I do wonder if it isn't just a small number of noisy people asking for it, and really if they didn't it, they wouldn't really lose any significant number of sales. 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

I do wonder if it isn't just a small number of noisy people asking for it

I've wondered that too, and when that is coupled with the perceived demand driven by ongoing glowing trade press reviews, it results in some manufacturers having an undue level of FOMO.

[loop7]

On 3/9/2023 at 12:00 AM, FredericV said:

why is there only one MQA ADC?

That is a very revealing question.

[yahooboy]

Have been in contact with a European (really Chinese owned, developed and produced) with the intend to buy a streaming receiver. Only I was inquiring about a non MQA version, hopping that they would follow the excellent way Topping does things. They don't and won't. During our correspondence I asked why they were displaying false information on their website, regarding the "virtues" of MQA.

They did not defend MQA or tell me that MQA actually did what was advertised😬

 

Quote

 

MQA
(Master Quality Authenticated)

 

The  includes MQA technology, which enables you to play back MQA audio files and streams, delivering the sound of the original master recording. The display indicates that the unit is decoding and playing an MQA stream or file and denotes provenance to ensure that the sound is identical to that of the source material. It glows blue to indicate it is playing an MQA Studio file, which has either been approved in the studio by the artist/producer or has been verified by the copyright owner.

 

 

in stead they wrote:

 

Quote

The MQA text included on our website is the official text provided by MQA and it's demanded to be included on product pages of products that are supporting MQA.

 

So not only can't their licensees not tell anybody what goes on in "the black box" but they make sure that when marketing a product with MQA, they must incriminate themselves..........

Nice people to business with.

[FredericV]

20 hours ago, yahooboy said:

So not only can't their licensees not tell anybody what goes on in "the black box" but they make sure that when marketing a product with MQA, they must incriminate themselves..........

Nice people to business with.

No balanced contracts:

http://6moons.com/industryfeatures/mqa/1.html
 

 

[bambadoo]

Topping listen to both sides of the table. 

 

Of course you save 100$ by choosing not to support MQA. 

[botrytis]

Also, how much of that 100 USD goes to MQA.

 

I still have a iFi nano, that I use when traveling for work, and have never updated with the newer  system because it had mqa decode, built-in.

[rn701]

Just noticed an mqa "master" album disappeared from tidal. Renaissance by Marcus Miller (Concord Jazz label,  May 2012) was previously available as a 16/44.1 mqa master, but is now only available as 16/44.1 flac.

 

Don't know if mqa was the only version before or if the flac verson was also there or has now replaced it. 

 

He's still got others on tidal in mqa, one from Warner/Rhino (mqa only), another from Universal/Decca (both flac and mqa). Didn’t go through his entire catalog.

 

Anyway, has anyone else noticed disappearing mqa albums on tidal? Could this be an encouraging trend?