MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, GUTB said:

It's true that MQA is lossy, but it seems that they've successfully identified what can be lost and still maintain high resolution audio. With MQA-CD specifically there does appear to be a loss of definition vs higher bitrate masters (176-384), so if it's a choice between MQA-CD and DXD or high-rate DSD than MQA-CD would be the last choice. However, high-rate DSD and DXD (or 176-192) don't have physical media (I wonder why?). So if you want physical digital media, and a lot of audiophiles (especially in Japan) do, there's 2 choices currently: SACD and MQA-CD.

 

SACD isn't lossy, but it's stuck with a lot of noise close to the audio band which requires an aggressive filter. It's not optimal for DSD, which really takes off at DSD-256. With MQA-CD, it seems to result in lossless-like performance up to 96 kHz. I also consider SACD to be somewhere around the 96 kHz level....but DSD isn't directly comparable that way so in some cases it provide great results that can't be matched by any PCM, certainly not on a CD format.

 

Another thing. I'm not really sold on the benifit of the time-domain correction. There is absolutely something happening to the sound which some of you guys say you don't like. Personally I don't mind it, but it doesn't make things sound more analog if I were to compare to my vinyl. So, if it's an analog master than SACD is still probably the best physical format. However. These huge libraries owned by the labels can be batch-converted to MQA, they can be just as easily pumped out in MQA-CD. It's turning out that for many titles on physical media MQA-CD is going to be the only high-res format available.

 

Sorry, I don't want BS and company determining FOR ME what is important or not. Until they show HOW they determined what is and is not important, I don't want it. MP3 - one can determine what is being thrown away because the protocol is an open book.

 

With MQA there IS NO TIME CORRECTION. That is one of the big fallacies. If anything it makes it worse.

 

BUT MQA-CD IS NOT A HIGH-RES format. It is a lower quality format because it isn't 16/44/1, period. Them saying it is high-res format is like saying 128K MP3's are a high res format. Just saying it, doesn't make it true.

[botrytis]

Just now, GUTB said:

How was it determined that there was no time correction?

 

Ask Archimago, et al.  they determined this. I am not an expert in mathematical modeling, etc. like they are. They showed graphs that it makes it worse. AND BS and MQA never showed what they mean by time correction in music, only on test signals which mean diddly-squat.

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Am not sure I agree with your comments about Darko's post. Here it is in full, hope Darko won't mind me posting it here, full apologies if I am transgressing with posting this - please remove this post if I am doing so:

 

That seems like a reasonable appraisal to me. Describing the two views as "extremist" seems fair - many hold a view that there is nothing to recommend about MQA and with the evidence fully shared in this thread. Others think the opposite. In the middle are those who really don't care and use it sporadically while the rest do not know of it. That looks like a relatively normal distribution curve, especially in early adoption of an innovation/technology?

 

When he says that "clearly, the pro-MQA and anti-MQA groups have some work to do if they are to convince others of their position" that feels like hitting the nail on the head. 

 

In this thread the most objective evidence of the true technical limitation and concerns around MQA have been expressed clearly and repeatedly. Similarly, the concerns around DRM, licensing and the nature of white glove and re-mastering processes have been opened out repeatedly. 

 

That has not swayed the pro-MQA folk and has not reached those who do not even know of MQA. It may or may not have reached the 34% who use MQA sometimes - we simply don't know.

 

MQA has put together arguments that convince many of its benefits. Certainly for the labels and streaming services. Less so, in fact not at all, for those in the audiophile community or those who care to look more closely at their strategy, especially looking back at the lessons learned (by BS, I suggest) with MLP / DVD Audio. All MQA has done there is to arm its opposition. Nor for musicians - hats off to Neil for his stance.

 

My own position is clear. MQA is unnecessary technically, lossy in delivery, a donkey smuggler with DRM, playing to the labels and not the artists and detrimental to the audience/consumer, who are being targeted as if it is to their advantage. The various arguments braid together all of these factors but, AFAIK there has not been a narrative that lays it out in a compelling way to those in the rump of Darko's survey, in language and concept that can land with them. It feels that maybe it is time for such a narrative. I use "compelling" deliberately. It should be a narrative that compels i.e. makes change something that must happen. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are no benefits to MQA. They have all been debunked as either bullshit or just plain lies out right. I mean saying saving space for downloads and streaming? With various high speed internet connections available, there is nothing there any more. And besides, FLAC encoded MQA files are not that much smaller the ACTUAL FLAC FILE OF THE SAME RESOLUTION. That and the fact that MQA does not go above 96KHz/17bit resolution in reality.

 

Until the mainstream audio press starts questioning MQA more, it will always be nonsense versus truth.

[botrytis]

Well, if customers are not educated, the brands need to do it. I mean, the audio press is not doing it besides spreading nonsense (there are exceptions and welcome them).

 

Wehn I bought my first set of Audiophile speakers, I actually called the factory and talked to the designer. Even though he designed the speakers with bi-amp capability, he believed it didn't do anything. He put them in because customers wanted them. He basically talked me out of bi-amping the speakers and just use a good quality amp. We need more of this.

[botrytis]

 

I think as Chris has stated, that if MQA becomes a standard, people will either pirate or not BUY ANY NEW MUSIC, only used records and CDs.

 

The Recording Industry wants total control. That is all they have ever wanted.

[botrytis]

 

Well, if you tell a lie long enough, people think it is the truth........

 

 

 

[botrytis]

Just now, Shimei said:

 

Well you definitely live in the wrong time. 

There used to be a time when contradictions were indicators of illogic, irrationality, or hypocrisy. However, nobody really cares anymore. Welcome to the new norm. 

 

Anyhoot, I do understand your point ..... but in my case Dirac Live limiting processors and less than desirable apps as well as major discount offered by Tidal made it more desirable in my eyes. 

 

Enjoy!

 

Problem is your Dirac Live IS NOT compatible with MQA. MQA does not allow any Room correction software to be used on it's files as it already used DSP as part of the decoding/encoding.

 

 

[botrytis]

10 hours ago, abrxx said:

 

That doesn't sound right. Everything I've read previously indicated that the "rendering" process involves upsampling to the highest rate of the DAC (using their custom mnimum-phase-like filters). The original sample rate is simply available as meta data to be displayed by the DAC or software.

 

NOPE - that is NOT what the patent on MQA shows.  Go through this thread and MQA is explained pedantically by people who are way smarter than I am. To them I owe a nod of thanks because it made me a more informed consumer.

 

The reason MQA files are not that much smaller than the 'same' resolution FLAC file is that FLAC cannot compact the MQA rendered file well. It is kind of like taking one zip file and putting it into another zip file. There will be no shrinking of the data because the data repeats cannot be found to put into the pointer part of the file. If one does not know what I am talking about, zip actually looks at the whole file and if there are certain data repeats, it places a pointer there and at the beginning of the file it puts a dictionary of all the pointers with what data they belong to, so one can reconstitute the file after decompressing.

[botrytis]

51 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Whathifi doesn't agree with you: https://www.whathifi.com/us/qobuz/review

 

Anyway, apart from MQA and true high-res, which may sound different, there is no audible difference IME between Qobuz and Tidal when the same lossless redbook version of an album is streamed from either service using the same hardware. Are you sure you have exclusive mode and force volume checked and loudness normalisation unchecked in the Tidal client?

 

 

Whathifi also did a bullshit review of MQA that was just a regurgitation of all the adverts that MQA has put out. Sorry if I don't trust a rag that does that.

[botrytis]

MQA wants to be the Covid-19 of audio world......

[botrytis]

20 hours ago, Kevin Brock said:

You know it is quite simple. If you don’t like MQA then don’t use it. And if you haven’t heard it over a decent period of time then you aren’t qualified to comment. I’ve listened for at least two years using Tidal. I’ve tried two DAC’s. A Meridian Explorer2 and now PS DirectStream Jnr. I hear the difference. MQA to my ears is usually better than CD. That’s all that matters. But if you don’t agree then fine. Don’t use it. Blimey, lie down in a darkened room with a glass of something and find some peace. I find it with MQA...But of you find it through Qobuz, MP3’s or 78’s that’s great.

 

Problem is this is the coming from the people who sells us these files. MQA is a way for them to control digital music front to back. That is NOT what I want. MQA might actually break the DMCA in the US, I am not a lawyer. Jes saying it is possible.

 

Once MQA gets more mainstream, it will be hard to impossible to stop. I wanted it stopped now.

 

Have you done blind listening with MQA? I have. It is not worth it and it doesn't sound better, to me so why should I pay MORE for something that sounds like crap to me? Don't say my equipment isn't good enough, because that is bullshit (one of the classic things MQA mavens say). 

[botrytis]

13 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

One of the credible things that can be pointed out about this "yet another" member is that, instead of looking into the facts, they immediately attack the people here, instead of actually attempting to discuss a different point of view. When you post comments like this one, it allows the pro-MQA crowd to discredit what is posted here in the same way, using posts such as yours as justification towards suggesting people ignore this thread and its contents.

 

I've had it in mind, for quite some time, to make a video about MQA.  If anyone is interested in helping with that, please PM me. 

 

Both sides do it, calling names. It is not one side or the other. It really doesn't matter but it kind of does. I mean Chris did not have to put up with the crap he did at RMAF. That shows the Pro-MQA people are more interested in not having the truth out.

[botrytis]

 

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

My bad on the MQD CD,  I blame my cataract and my Covid delayed eye glass prescription delay. The MQA downloads, now that is another matter. Compared to tge DSD128 and 256 files at $40 and $50 the $30 for MQA is a bargain. Then again, maybe not. 😀

 

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, danadam said:

I always thought that "white glove" processing meant:

1. carefully prepare a new master (in good old PCM, mind you)
2. encode it in MQA, the usual way
3. release to public only the encoded version and keep PCM master in safe

which would not entirely apply in case of BC because, presumably, the master they release in FLAC/DSD is already a carefully prepared master.

 

Well, just ask Neil Young if that was done with his masters, on Tidal. If it was, then why did he pull his music?

 

It is just more hand waving and marketing nonsense.

[botrytis]

5 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

I'm somewhat glad you suggested this ... conspiracy theory. I've (not surprisingly!) been interacting with friends who are deep into conspiracies, and one of the most telling aspects is their ignorance of the complexities of any form of science.  It's very telling to have access to high-level doctors or scientists who actually know, in detail, about any subject that you see reported on the news. You quickly realise how incredibly ignorant people who put forth conspiracies are, as well as how painfully simplified what you read in the news is. Ignorant people can be educated, unless they simply don't want to be. Then, the best thing to do is use their arguments as an opportunity to educate others.

 

I'm dealing with someone who is equally ignorant of the science around digital sampling theory, who has taken as factual the writings of the MQA group. There seems to be a belief that because what has been put out by them has some kind of scientific basis, that it is correct. Explaining why it has issues takes time, and runs up against common, misleading arguments that have been used before (eg: the ringing around impulse responses being bad).

 

Well, like anti-vaxxers - once the info is out on the internet, it can never be erased.

[botrytis]

More than likely the NDA is not enforceable either. 

[botrytis]

A post from the Mod on that thread....

 

We have received the following statement from an 'MQA spokesperson':

"The technical claims presented by HIGHRESAUDIO are fundamentally incorrect and ill-informed. These assertions are consistent with the few we have seen from others who are uncomfortable with the concept of studio quality audio that is convenient for all."

[botrytis]

Of course MQA would say that. That is all they can do.

[botrytis]

12 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

What to expect, there have been untruths or 'mistruths' coming from MQA all along.  Yet another one.

 

 

John,

 

I want to tell you I appreciate your expertise and applaud what you are doing for us audio nuts.

 

Back to MQA, where marketing is used as science.

 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m sure this will be hard hitting journalism. 
 

 

 

 

Softball journalism at it's finest.

 

 

I remember reading somewhere that BS was interested in Psycho-acoustics, so I am wondering if that is what MQA is all along. If they make something that uninitiated feels it sounds better, unconsciously they will pick that file over and over. Just thinking out loud.

 

[botrytis]

Maybe a nerf ball interview.....

 

Well, in thinking about it, maybe it it is my untrusting nature of snake oil salesman, but I think BS is trying to sell MQA to an unsuspecting audience. Ones that never heard of MQA and like MP3's. 

 

Am I reading too much into it?

[botrytis]

@GoldenOne Thank you for explaining to luddites like me.

[botrytis]

I see on the HiFi Plus article Helpful Dad is there spewing his nonsense....

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

He certainly does blather on about topics that he doesn't fully understand...

 

 

 

He certainly assumes he knows more than anyone and he really doesn't understand. I think many people like that react more like audio is a religion, then a hobby or just fun. I am agnostic when it comes to that. If I learn I am wrong, I rethink and move on with what I have learned. I guess it is the scientist in me that always thinks there will always be people who know more than you, learn from the experts.

 

I learn something new every day. When I stop learning, I will be dead.