MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, randyhat said:

I've been trying out Qobuz with a one month beta trial.  I also have Tidal.  Both are played through a roon nucleus through a Lumin T-1 doc/streamer.  This has given me an opportunity to compare MQA to Qobuz hi-res.  In terms of sound quality I find the MQA and hi-res Qobuz files to be virtually indistinguishable.  Anyone else do this comparison?  I prepared to expect the hi-res versions to sound better...and in some cases they do.  But in other cases I think the MQA sounds better.  In the majority of comparisons they pretty much sound the same to me.

 

I tended to prefer the "straight" stuff to MQA, and Qobuz to MQA in general.  But not at all surprising that listening experiences vary.

 

In the cases where I preferred MQA, it was very evident the mastering was different (for example, instruments in different locations).

[Jud]

19 hours ago, crenca said:

 

You were actually never part of it anyways.  Industry sycophants and insiders are only here to sell things and insider wants/needs, not actually take part in the process which helps consumers reach their high Fidelity goals. Your participation here is in fact anti-consumer.  This is not a disrespectful observation, it's just true.

 

Doesn’t change the fact that getting into personal info on this forum is a creepy thing that shouldn’t be done or encouraged without the advance consent of the individual involved.

 

 I say that entirely apart from any thoughts about MQA, which as I’ve often said here, I don’t like the sound of insofar as I can tell a difference, and I certainly don’t like the prospect of proprietary lower resolution recordings crowding out hi res or RedBook.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Those, like crenca, who dismiss the range of opinion about how MQA-processed music actually sounds are strangely removed from the essence of perfectionist audio. Plenty of thinking audiophiles—even those with doubts about the technology—recognize this as the intolerant and hate-fueled flailing of a vigilante minority that it is, and tune out. 

 

Hi @ARQuint -

 

I think you are, however, being somewhat dismissive in turn. What information are you using to say that within the range of opinion about how MQA sounds, those who don’t favor it are a minority fueled by hate?

 

 I like to think of myself as someone who enjoys the sound of music reproduced as accurately as possible, and to the extent I have been able to tell a difference when the same master is used, I have liked MQA less.  Though I generally wouldn’t want any proprietary format taking over the market, (1) at the time I was comparing MQA to RedBook, it was before they’d signed deals with anyone other than Tidal, so the possibility of a market takeover didn’t seem to me to be probable anyway, and (2) even if a format was proprietary, if it was plainly superior to my ears, then I’d be intrigued and would have no problem saying so.

 

Thus I think caricaturing the numbers and motivations of those who don’t favor MQA is as fraught, difficult, and likely to be wrong as caricaturing the numbers and motivations of those who do.

[Jud]

22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

So MQA CD 8-15 may be correct. Ahhhhh.

 

Could simply say MQA lo res. Accurate, short, plain.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

I work in the truth and reality department. 

 

Whaddaya think about climate change?   

[Jud]

18 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

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

 

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

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

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

 

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

[Jud]

54 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Jud]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[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.

[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?

[Jud]

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Whatever happened to Andersen?

 

They were unlucky enough to have a team assigned to Enron, the scam energy company, and further unlucky enough that those in charge of the team thought they ought to protect the scammers rather than perform a true audit.

 

As is usual with these things, since Andersen was a prime source of money for those defrauded by Enron with the help of Andersen accountants, the entire 80,000-person firm was way downsized, and changed from primarily an accounting firm to a consultancy.  (My brother worked for a subsidiary as a retail consultant, but lost his job in the downsizing.)

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

I should like to ask you to expand upon this a bit more. So far as I can see, MQA is not very beneficial to most musicians, only to the corporate side, which is probably not coincidentally, where revenues where supposedly hit the hardest.  I do not see how MQA does anything for the average Joe playing for his supper and selling CDs and music downloads at concerts and on the net. 

 

 

The idea is classic “trickle down” - the folks in charge will make more $$, which of course they will immediately generously share with the artists, who need the money since they have perpetually been royally screwed by exactly these same folks in charge.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, randyhat said:

Now, if I have to jump through too many hoops or pay extra

 

That of course is the entire idea behind a proprietary format with potential for DRM like MQA: If we reach the point where other companies do what Tidal and 2L have already done, then they control your access to music, including your continued access to music you already “own.” They can charge you whatever you’ll pay not to have your music shut off like a faucet. And you better hope MQA never goes out of business, or is abandoned by the music companies for something they like better.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Let's note what Paul and so many others have observed over the past two years on this thread., It's not a "discussion" if only one point of view is welcome and persons with another opinion are assailed and then advised to go elsewhere.

 

You’re correct. On the other hand, the failure to seriously engage on technical topics and concerns audiophiles have about access to non-proprietary hi res means that an actual exchange of ideas isn’t being sought by most folks of pro-MQA persuasion either.  So yes, ganging up on folks who don’t share an anti-MQA point of view is tiresome.  But how much of real value is thereby missed?  

 

When a couple of MQA principals derailed Chris’s RMAF presentation, they used the time not to put forward facts, but to attack the anonymity of someone who did measurements, and to attack Chris’s honesty by implying he’d been given confidential pro-MQA technical information that contradicted what he was saying publicly. All insinuation, no open technical discussion.  If that’s indicative of what’s being missed, it doesn’t seem like a great loss.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Who is it that these guys show up reliably a few weeks after the last one fizzled out?

 

Paul’s been here since long before you found this place. He was inactive on the forums for a while and is just getting back to them.

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I agree with everything you said except this point. I think the commercial code out there was deliberately written to limit the resolution, and that it’s current behavior is not a limitation of the technology / algorithm.

 

There are similar implementations of similar technology in other fields that do not have this flaw. Other flaws perhaps, but not this. Ergo - this flaw is on purpose. 

 

Now, the behavior of the people selling/marketing MQA and the recording industry, well, I agree with you completely. 

 

Hi Paul -

 

I think the fact the compression is lossy is intentional on the part of MQA itself, to make reverse engineering more difficult. This indicates to me that MQA is more concerned with protection of its intellectual property than sound quality.

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Dealers are agents of the brands they represent. Their job is to sell more of whatever the latter produce. Whether or not they actually believe the stories they tell is beside the point. Without telling them, they wouldn't sell as much.

 

Don’t know whether the majority of dealers are like this - quite possibly, but it would just be conjecture on my part.

 

I’ve actually run into the opposite problem, when after I told a dealer I’d purchased speakers elsewhere and was interested in looking at amps, he refused to demo anything for me, saying I’d just go back to the dealer I bought the speakers from anyway. (Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy....)

 

The dealer who sold me most of my original system would actually discourage me and others from purchasing from him the “latest and greatest” that had just been given favorable reviews if he thought it wouldn’t be an improvement, or a sufficient improvement, over what we already had.  (He also had a nicely incisive sense of humor about audio marketing. He would occasionally walk over to a wall and shout into it, “The Sound of Bose!”)

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is he still in business?

 

Heh, no.    He and most other audio-only dealers got killed off by the audio-video stores. He wasn’t interested in video.

 

Edit: This was also 25-30 years ago.

[Jud]

45 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Hi Jud, sounds like Jack at Chestnut Hill Audio. I still have the stuff he sold me. It still sounds great.

 

Got it in one!

 

Edit: I have the original amp I bought from him (after speaking with Richard Vandersteen about it) in my desktop system; the preamp I bought as an upgrade from him in the main system; and speakers I bought from him privately in the main system.

 

He had Philadelphia Orchestra season tickets. I went along with him a few times.

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, BrokeLinuxPhile said:

Sony has been more than willing to shove proprietary media down our throats for decades now.  It's practically their business model.  As long as they exist, we'll still have  a new shiny "betamax" being shilled all over the press.

 

At least Betamax was technically better for picture quality.  Friend owned one back when, best thing I saw until the Faroudja line doublers and such came along.

[Jud]

9 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

 Not if we’re talking about the 10.000 claims to be on Qobuz. Which is what he is talking about. The claimed number 10.000 vs actually there only exist around 2000. 

 

If Qobuz was offering DSD, then you would have a very good point, but they doesn’t. 

 

What they do have are albums like the one he started out discussing, the 24/96 version of the White Album.  I'm very pleased Qobuz has it, and could care less whether it meets "Dr. Aix's" own private personal definition of hi res. He and you are perfectly free not to subscribe, or to subscribe to a non-hi-res tier.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

I think he referring to the hi res logo trademark of the Japan Audio Society, and those criteria apply to the use of that logo. (And that logo also appears on The White Album)

 

Not his personal definition.

Maybe those supply Qobuz with music is are the ones (mis)using and promoting the logo. Would be interesting to know. 

 

BTW

I now have Qobuz on my Roon.

And the one thing I have noticed so far is that you can’t browse hi res albums or see what’s hi res. (As you can Tidal maters). But that’s a Roon issue. 

 

I was thinking of his various posts through the years. He's said variously that DSD is bad, that 24/192 and DXD are unnecessary, in fact that pretty much everything except the 24/96 resolution recordings he produces and sells are a type of fraud on the consumer.

 

As for his own recordings, despite the fact his customers apparently aren't able to tell the difference between them and CDs, his site still says, "The more people experience real high-res audio the more they will demand record labels provide them."

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

More people demanding HiRes after experiencing it has nothing to do with audio quality.  There is no conflict, even with bold, quoted text.

 

That isn't what Mr. Waldrep has said for many years. I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Jud]

55 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

There's a scarier question here: "what does it say of Tidal / Qobuz if their UI is so bad that customers have to pay an extra $10 a month to have something workable ?"

 

Tidal and Qobuz' UIs are reasonable.  Roon is a luxury UI, where you can, for instance, bring up all the albums in Tidal or Qobuz that have a certain bass player or session guitarist on them.