MQA is Vaporware

[mav52]

2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Actually MQA is still vaporware. It will take another 6,000 or so albums to turn the vapor into a liquid. It will stay a liquid for quite a while since the next hurdle is 1% of the albums available to get MQA out of commercially viable discussions.

I look at it this way ; Vaporware;  software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed. Its passed it Vaporware stage.  Its out in the public and being utilized. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 minute ago, mav52 said:

From Audiostream,  Michaels position  https://www.audiostream.com/content/against-mqa-unfolded

 

My Official MQA Position
Who cares what my official MQA position is? OK, for those that do care, I don't have one. And I don't have one because a) it doesn't matter, and b) it doesn't matter. What I do have is experience. This matters.

And my experience tells me that MQA can make recorded music sound better (see my review of MQA). In some cases much, much better. I've never heard MQA processing make music sound worse.

You may agree, you may disagree. In either case, my experience does not change. You can question my motives, but then you'd just be being silly.

 

Since I'm the one keeping score Michael's position isn't one of the choices. 

[FredericV]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

What would be good is an idiots guide as to the claims made by MQA Ltd, and the actual truth - so those people who have no technical capability can see the opposing (truthful ??) facts. I can see the question and answer session on this site, so if some of those key answers were commented upon - as an example :

 

"Q82 i) “MQA have around 13 Bit of “lossless” information and everything below 14 Bit is “lossy”

 

This is incorrect. In general, the MQA system can reach in excess of either 23-bit dynamic range capability or 3–6 bits below the content noise in the audio band."

How is 23 bits of dynamic range possible, if 17 bits of the 24 bits distribution file are already borrowed to reconstruct the partial ultrasonics? Remember that MQA can't describe any ultrasonic frequencies above 44.1 or 48K (depending if the original resolution is a multiple of 44.1 or 48K), as the second unfold is minimum phase upsampling + weird filters. The first unfold adds one octave compared to the undecoded version. The second unfold does not recover any new entropy, and does not recover any extra additional octaves.

Why can MQA get away with only 13 bits of resolution (in case of MQA CD) or 17 bits (in case of 24 bit distribution files)?

This is very easy to explain:

No music content has 24 bits of actual resolution. I recently had the chance to record K's Choice in Koor (= in choir), an acoustic concert with a 240 voices choir in deSingel in Antwerp.
 

 

This concert hall has an RT60 of 2,03 seconds, which is ideal:

https://desingel.be/nl/info/blauwe-zaal

 

Let's look at RT60. RT60 basically debunks the need for 24 bit:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/revtim.html

 

Quote

The choice of the relative intensity to use is of course arbitrary, but there is a good rationale for using 60 dB since the loudest crescendo for most orchestral music is about 100 dB and a typical room background level for a good music-making area is about 40 dB. Thus the standard reverberation time is seen to be about the time for the loudest crescendo of the orchestra to die away to the level of the room background. The 60 dB range is about the range of dynamic levels for orchestral music.

 

So if an orchestra has about 60dB of dynamic range, we need 10 bits of resolution. So if MQA claims "3–6 bits below the content noise in the audio band", this can actually be true,  but MQA also debunks the need for 24 audio bit depth.

MQA CD can perfectly get away with 10 bits of musical content + and 3 extra bits below the content noise in the audio band for some extra headroom, to land at only 13 bits of actual audio+noise, and 3 secret encrypted DRM bits, do recover some lossy ultrasonics and add one extra lossy octave compared to redbook quality.

With 24 bit distribution files, they most likely have 16 bits for the baseband audio, and 8 encrypted lossy DRM'ed bits to add an extra octave. So again, with 24 bit distribution files and 10 bits of real audio data like the dynamic range of a typical hall like deSingel in Antwerp, the claim of  "6 bits below the content noise in the audio band " can be true.

MQA basically debunks the need for 24 bits of audio bit depth

[Rt66indierock]

20 minutes ago, mav52 said:

I look at it this way ; Vaporware;  software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed. Its passed it Vaporware stage.  Its out in the public and being utilized. 

 

We discussed this earlier in the thread. Chris was claiming I had a moving target of albums so I set the vaporware number at 10,000 instead of a percentage. You forget I still can't buy MQA albums in the formats listed in the original post. And as I said earlier once we get past vaporware we discuss commercially viable.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, mav52 said:

From Audiostream,  Michaels position  https://www.audiostream.com/content/against-mqa-unfolded

 

My Official MQA Position
Who cares what my official MQA position is? OK, for those that do care, I don't have one. And I don't have one because a) it doesn't matter, and b) it doesn't matter. What I do have is experience. This matters.

And my experience tells me that MQA can make recorded music sound better (see my review of MQA). In some cases much, much better. I've never heard MQA processing make music sound worse.

You may agree, you may disagree. In either case, my experience does not change. You can question my motives, but then you'd just be being silly.

Hi,

This is not a post challenging you.

I am not for MQA since the system is a closed standard, and from the analysis on this site, the stated claims by MQA Ltd are not correct.

Since it is a closed standard, does MQA implement something new, or is the closed nature of the standard due to the fact that it may use someone else's open/public work (a new kernel as an example), and trying to pass this off as new technology with added DRM ?

I have never heard MQA, but the fact that it is a closed standard, NDA required to know the detail, and MQA stated claims are not correct, does lead me to think that perhaps, there is more to know.

An example, is what if the MQA encoding processes added even order harmonics ? (is this why they won't provide test tones ???) Sounds nice - but is this truly getting you closer to the master as the artist wants you to (or whatever the claim is).

Again, this is not a post challenging you - but that there is more to the system, and i suppose for me, i do not want to be duped.

Regards

Shadders.

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, FredericV said:

How is 23 bits of dynamic range possible, if 17 bits of the 24 bits distribution file are already borrowed to reconstruct the partial ultrasonics? Remember that MQA can't describe any ultrasonic frequencies above 44.1 or 48K (depending if the original resolution is a multiple of 44.1 or 48K), as the second unfold is minimum phase upsampling + weird filters. The first unfold adds one octave compared to the undecoded version. The second unfold does not recover any new entropy, and does not recover any extra additional octaves.

Why can MQA get away with only 13 bits of resolution (in case of MQA CD) or 17 bits (in case of 24 bit distribution files)?

This is very easy to explain:

No music content has 24 bits of actual resolution. I recently had the chance to record K's Choice in Koor (= in choir), an acoustic concert with a 240 voices choir in deSingel in Antwerp.
 

 

This concert hall has an RT60 of 2,03 seconds, which is ideal:

https://desingel.be/nl/info/blauwe-zaal

 

Let's look at RT60. RT60 basically debunks the need for 24 bit:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/revtim.html

 

 

So if an orchestra has about 60dB of dynamic range, we need 10 bits of resolution. So if MQA claims "3–6 bits below the content noise in the audio band", this can actually be true,  but MQA also debunks the need for 24 bit bit depth.

MQA CD can perfectly get away with 10 bits of musical content + and 3 extra bits below the content noise in the audio band, to land at only 13 bits of actual audio+noise, and 3 secret encrypted DRM bits, do recover some lossy ultrasonics and add one extra lossy octave compared to redbook quality.

With 24 bit distribution files, they most likely have 16 bits for the baseband audio, and 8 encrypted lossy DRM'ed bits to add an extra octave. So again, with 24 bit distribution files and 10 bits of real audio data like the dynamic range of a typical hall like deSingel in Antwerp, the claim of  "6 bits below the content noise in the audio band " can be true.

MQA basically debunks the need for 24 audio bit depth

 

Or more simply most peoples point of pain is 120 db. A very quite time in my office with the HVAC off is around 30 db. The difference is 90 db. The dynamic range of a CD is 96 db. 24 bits gives a recording engineer and mastering engineer margin for error that 16 bits doesn't. 

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, FredericV said:

How is 23 bits of dynamic range possible, if 17 bits of the 24 bits distribution file are already borrowed to reconstruct the partial ultrasonics? Remember that MQA can't describe any ultrasonic frequencies above 44.1 or 48K (depending if the original resolution is a multiple of 44.1 or 48K), as the second unfold is minimum phase upsampling + weird filters. The first unfold adds one octave compared to the undecoded version. The second unfold does not recover any new entropy, and does not recover any extra additional octaves.

Why can MQA get away with only 13 bits of resolution (in case of MQA CD) or 17 bits (in case of 24 bit distribution files)?

It's actually 15 bits for 24-bit files. I have yet to come across a sample from an MQA CD, so I don't know what bit allocation they use there.

 

As for how they can claim 23 bits of dynamic range, that's easy. They use shaped dither, so the effective dynamic range is frequency-dependent. Presumably their particular shaping curve results in a peak dynamic range equivalent to 23 bits for some frequency. Look at the spectrum of any undecoded MQA file and you'll see a lot of noise above 15 kHz.

[mansr]

46 minutes ago, mav52 said:

From Audiostream,  Michaels position  https://www.audiostream.com/content/against-mqa-unfolded

 

My Official MQA Position
Who cares what my official MQA position is? OK, for those that do care, I don't have one. And I don't have one because a) it doesn't matter, and b) it doesn't matter. What I do have is experience. This matters.

And my experience tells me that MQA can make recorded music sound better (see my review of MQA). In some cases much, much better. I've never heard MQA processing make music sound worse.

You may agree, you may disagree. In either case, my experience does not change. You can question my motives, but then you'd just be being silly.

What a convoluted way of saying he's all for it.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

How is 23 bits of dynamic range possible, if 17 bits of the 24 bits distribution file are already borrowed to reconstruct the partial ultrasonics? Remember that MQA can't describe any ultrasonic frequencies above 44.1 or 48K (depending if the original resolution is a multiple of 44.1 or 48K), as the second unfold is minimum phase upsampling + weird filters. The first unfold adds one octave compared to the undecoded version. The second unfold does not recover any new entropy, and does not recover any extra additional octaves.

Why can MQA get away with only 13 bits of resolution (in case of MQA CD) or 17 bits (in case of 24 bit distribution files)?

This is very easy to explain:

No music content has 24 bits of actual resolution. I recently had the chance to record K's Choice in Koor (= in choir), an acoustic concert with a 240 voices choir in deSingel in Antwerp.
 

 

This concert hall has an RT60 of 2,03 seconds, which is ideal:

https://desingel.be/nl/info/blauwe-zaal

 

Let's look at RT60. RT60 basically debunks the need for 24 bit:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/revtim.html

 

 

So if an orchestra has about 60dB of dynamic range, we need 10 bits of resolution. So if MQA claims "3–6 bits below the content noise in the audio band", this can actually be true,  but MQA also debunks the need for 24 audio bit depth.

MQA CD can perfectly get away with 10 bits of musical content + and 3 extra bits below the content noise in the audio band for some extra headroom, to land at only 13 bits of actual audio+noise, and 3 secret encrypted DRM bits, do recover some lossy ultrasonics and add one extra lossy octave compared to redbook quality.

With 24 bit distribution files, they most likely have 16 bits for the baseband audio, and 8 encrypted lossy DRM'ed bits to add an extra octave. So again, with 24 bit distribution files and 10 bits of real audio data like the dynamic range of a typical hall like deSingel in Antwerp, the claim of  "6 bits below the content noise in the audio band " can be true.

MQA basically debunks the need for 24 bits of audio bit depth

Hi,

Apologies for the late reply.

In essence, they are not providing the 24bit master, and you are therefore not hearing the sound as per the recording engineer - as it is lossy.

In addition, the creation of 23bits (the question answer) is an estimation - hence is lossy. So the question statement, whether 13bit or 15bit is correct in that it is lossy.

We could argue, i suppose, whether we need 15bit, 10bits or another number, but MQA are claiming something (hear it as the recording engineer, or artist intended), and it is in dispute.

If 10bits is sufficient, then we do not need MQA. They (MQA Ltd) cannot claim you need to hear the master authenticated, and then provide something much less than the master, and still claim you are getting the master and you must therefore be able to hear the positive benefit.

 

There is a classic quote from the film The Outlaw Josey Wales "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

 

Which quite aptly describes MQA Ltd approach.

 

Regards,

 

Shadders.

[mav52]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

What a convoluted way of saying he's all for it.

Thats what thought  , I have wondered if his nose grew when he wrote that.:)

[Ralf11]

He'll be back.  So you can ask after his next supercilious post.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, mav52 said:

Thats what thought  , I have wondered if his nose grew when he wrote that.:)

That would imply he's made of wood. Witches are made of wood. Where's my duck?

[mav52]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

That would imply he's made of wood. Witches are made of wood. Where's my duck?

Your mallard is on its way.

[Charles Hansen]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

That would imply he's made of wood. Witches are made of wood. Where's my duck?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

 

LOL!

[mav52]

9 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

This is not a post challenging you.

I am not for MQA since the system is a closed standard, and from the analysis on this site, the stated claims by MQA Ltd are not correct.

Since it is a closed standard, does MQA implement something new, or is the closed nature of the standard due to the fact that it may use someone else's open/public work (a new kernel as an example), and trying to pass this off as new technology with added DRM ?

I have never heard MQA, but the fact that it is a closed standard, NDA required to know the detail, and MQA stated claims are not correct, does lead me to think that perhaps, there is more to know.

An example, is what if the MQA encoding processes added even order harmonics ? (is this why they won't provide test tones ???) Sounds nice - but is this truly getting you closer to the master as the artist wants you to (or whatever the claim is).

Again, this is not a post challenging you - but that there is more to the system, and i suppose for me, i do not want to be duped.

Regards

Shadders.

You never heard so it appears your going on a assumption. And as far as the post I didn't say it was challenging. Not even sure where you got that. 

[mav52]

9 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Since I'm the one keeping score Michael's position isn't one of the choices. 

Anyone can keep score ?

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

Anyone can keep score ?

 

True but you have think keeping score is important. I recognized what was going on with MQA in June of 2016 as I've stated several times and started keeping score. You were talking about vinyl.

[Shadders]

6 hours ago, mav52 said:

You never heard so it appears your going on a assumption. And as far as the post I didn't say it was challenging. Not even sure where you got that. 

Hi,

No, i am referring to the questions and answers, and that the answers are not accurate as per Q82. So, not an assumption.

The MQA website states "Delivering master quality audio to subscriber" and "Offering MQA sound quality allows subscribers to hear music just as it was recorded in the studio"

This is not possible if the system is lossy. So, the answer to Q82 states the system is not lossy, when in fact it is. The MQA website makes claims when if you examine the analysis on this web site, the filters are inadequate and present aliasing. This is NOT master quality.

Quality implies high integrity, and for this aspect, lossless.

The encoding could make any album sound "nice" and since it is secret - we could assume the "niceness" comes from harmonic distortion ? Who knows.

My statement of not challenging you is as per your experience, and that i have not heard it. So i too may like the sound, but it is NOT based on good engineering (aliasing, lossy coding etc), and the MQA claims are in my opinion, not accurate.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Sam Lord]

............

[Melvin]

On 9/3/2017 at 4:46 PM, mav52 said:

With all of this Vaporware talk since Jan, it appears this vapor has been compressed by MQA and the music labels into a liquid and it's now flowing but not stopping.

 

As mentioned back in May .. juggernaut. I rest my case.  

Michael nicely highlights the latest here: https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-ifa-2017-updates

 

 

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, Melvin said:

Michael nicely highlights the latest here: https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-ifa-2017-updates

 

The last words in that article are “Choice is good.”  I fervently hope choice remains available.  (If there are many viable choices, I personally don’t care if MQA is one of them, though their commercial viability will have to be on someone else’s dime.)

[lucretius]

20 hours ago, mav52 said:

From Audiostream,  Michaels position  https://www.audiostream.com/content/against-mqa-unfolded

 

Apparently, Rotel is on the list of new MQA Hardware Devices and Partners. This is a company that wouldn't pay licencing fees for SACD, yet they are willing to for MQA. I wonder what the thinking was here.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, Melvin said:

 

As mentioned back in May .. juggernaut. I rest my case.  

Michael nicely highlights the latest here: https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-ifa-2017-updates

 

 

 

Melvin you are resting your case in the MQA is Vaporware thread. You are arguing that a format with less than 10,000 albums is a juggernaut. My last count is still under 3,500 albums so it is not even close to getting of the vaporware list. Now if the majors get busy and convert enough albums to get MQA off my vaporware list where are we at? Now we have a discussion about whether MQA is commercially viable. For MQA to be commercially viable there would have to be at least 1% of all albums available in MQA. A number far larger than all the all of the hi-res albums Marc Fine of the Digital Entertainment Group says are currently available. 1% isn’t even a six figure number of albums. There are no formats considered juggernauts with numbers this small. Now for MQA to reach critical mass the number of albums would have to have two commas in it. Even a million albums would still be less than a quarter of the music available but if was the right million it would be a viable tier for a streaming company.

 

All you have to do is look at how hard it is to sell CD quality streaming to see the market isn’t there. For a format to succeed people have to do one of two things. Buy music in the format or stream music in the format. There are no other ways for a format to be successful. MQA has not succeeded in either so it’s not successful. You rested your case prematurely.

[lucretius]

19 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

For a format to succeed people have to do one of two things. Buy music in the format or stream music in the format. There are no other ways for a format to be successful. ...

 

Actually, at my location, I still cannot purchase MQA music.

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

Actually, at my location, I still cannot purchase MQA music.

 

Pretty much the same boat I saw an MQA version of American Beauty yesterday on Onkyo Music but do I need a third version of it?